Multiculturalism in America

Immigrants from all around the world have been coming to America ever since the continent was discovered. The reasons that made people travel across the ocean were different, but all of them pursued the same desire for better life and happiness. Someone escaped the oppression in their motherland, someone ran from poverty and starvation, someone arrived as a refugee of war.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Multiculturalism in America specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Between the middle of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century the country has received over twenty five million immigrants. Flows of people from Britain, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Poland, Italy and Greece moved to the United States. Besides, the natives from Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries also came to live there. Finally, great numbers of immigrants from South America moved to the U. S. Today, the United States of America is one of the most multinational countries of the world. After millions of people of various backgrounds, religions and ethnicities have arrived and stayed in the U. S. multiple cultural clashes became inevitable. Some of the cultures and nations assimilated and adjusted, some mixed together with others. As a result, the appearance of a typical citizen of the United States is impossible to describe. Walking the streets of an American metropolis such as New York or Boston one will meet people of all kinds and backgrounds that were born and raised in the States. This country is often compared to a mixed salad or a stew, where the most diverse ingredients are cooked in one pot, creating a unique and original composition of flavors, making a dish that is unlike others. I certainly agree that the population of the United States has always been very multicultural, this country’s history and prosperity is based on the constant flows of immigration. For example, ind ustrialization in the U. S. was mainly pushed forward by millions of foreign arrivers that came to the American urban areas to work. Moving away from the food similes, I think that this country and its national diversity could be compared to a puzzle with a great number of pieces. All of the parts of this puzzle are different; sometimes it is hard to put them together because they do not seem to fit each other.Advertising Looking for critical writing on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Their colors and shapes vary, yet all of them belong together. Spending some effort, one will find a way to locate a couple of matching pieces and then attach more parts to the initial bit. More and more pieces put together allow the viewer see the bigger picture of the puzzle. It turns out that all of the parts that seemed so different are able to create quite a homogenous composition, and this is the strength of the final pictu re, its special feature. Even though the pieces seem so different, they are all interconnected, and each of them is a part of one enormous masterpiece. Of course, racial stereotypes and inequalities have created a lot of discomfort for the people of the U. S., but a lot of measures are taken by the country’s leaders to overcome discrimination based on ethnic background, and reduce the cultural clashes to the minimum. Most of the countries on our planet are shared by more than one nation; this is why the news programs are always filled with reports of cultural clashes between two neighboring ethnicities, just like the one happening at the moment between people of Russian and Ukrainian backgrounds on the territory of Ukraine. The special trait of the United States is that it managed to accumulate dozens of ethnicities, made them neighbors and empowered them to live in peace and work together for the prosperity of the whole nation. This critical writing on Multiculturalism in America was written and submitted by user Nevaeh Bass to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Critical Thinking and Clinical Competency Essays

Critical Thinking and Clinical Competency Essays Critical Thinking and Clinical Competency Paper Critical Thinking and Clinical Competency Paper Essay Topic: Critical Thinking   The professional advancement for nurses is a lifelong process that can be achieved through continuous education and efficient clinical development. The primary objective of nurses’ professional development is to sustain clinical competency to enhance patients’ care outcomes. The nurses’ responsibility is to maintain professional standards and knowledge to be able to implement highest levels of medical services to patients and members of the community. To provide an efficient and safe patient care nurses must implement in daily practice respectively developed critical thinking competencies. The purpose of this paper is to inform readers on how the critical thinking is used in clinical practice, how to employ critical thinking strategies to improve clinical competence, and connections between critical thinking, scholarship, and practice. The nursing leaders task is to determine the individual competencies that primary care nursing staff must advance to improve comprehensive critical thinking. Berkow, Virkstis, and Steward (2011) proposed that the â€Å"conducting an assessment of frontline nurse critical thinking is a necessary, yet frequently overlooked first step in improving this essential component of nurse performance.† To provide nurses with better understanding of concepts of critical thinking, the initial step is to identify individual strengths and weaknesses therefore to enforce necessary evaluation and implementation. The critical thinking proficiency might be mastered at any time of nurses’ professional career. The Critical Thinking Diagnostic (CTD) is a persuasive instrument used in evaluating core critical thinking competencies along nursing staff. It was developed by Nursing Executive Center in 2009.

Leadership Analysis of a Public Figure Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Leadership Analysis of a Public Figure - Essay Example Let us get a brief overview of his background before discussing his input and role in the advancement of the digital world. Steve Jobs was born in 1955 in California. Paul and Clara Jobs, who belonged to a lower middle class family, brought him up. He grew up in the neighborhood of engineers who used to work with electronic equipments at their homes. This environment helped him shape his interest in the field of electronics. Jobs was a brilliant student at school. He always showed good results and excellent exam performances. He graduated from high school in 1962 and got admission in Reed College, Oregon. However, Jobs had to leave that college because of poor financial status of his parents. In 1976, Jobs along with his friends, Steve Wozniak and Ronal Wayne, invented the first ever Apple computer in the garage of his parents’ house and put it for sale. To develop the computer, he received funds from engineer Mike Markkula, who was the product-marketing manager at Intel. This was just the start for Jobs. Later on, he went on to develop Apple Lisa, Super Bowl television, Macintosh, and a number of other products. He resigned from Apple Inc. in 1985 due to his clash with the Apple’s CEO, John Sculley and founded NeXT Computer straight away with the capital of 7 million dollars. Later on, Apple bought NeXT Computer in 1996 and appointed Jobs as the Interim Chief Executive. In 2000, Jobs became the CEO of Apple Inc. This was the real start of Steve Jobs as a leader. After becoming the CEO of the company, Jobs proved his leadership and management skills and worked hard to achieve domination in the field of digital electronics. Jobs-inspired Apple and NeXT products are considered platforms for a number of today’s amazing innovations (Severance, 2012). Jobs was the man who never stopped working and kept on creating new products even during his bad days. He was an enthusiastic person who always worked with a positive mindset to achieve success (Gr ant & Sharma, 2011). Even when he was fired from Apple inc. in 1986, he did not get upset and kept on working with a new approach. He even said in a speech that leaving Apple Inc. was the best thing which could have happened to him in his life. He did not leave his heart at that time and entered the world of creativity with new aims and heights of motivation. If we analyze the working approach of Jobs at NeXT Computer and Apple Inc., we come to know that Jobs used a combination of autocratic and transformational leadership styles in both companies. As Branson (2011) states, â€Å"Steve Jobs’s leadership style was autocratic; he had a meticulous eye for detail, and surrounded himself with like-minded people to follow his lead†. He was a kind of leader who wanted to take charge of every matter of the company. He was also a transformational leader because he always motivated his employees to show improved efficiency and productivity. As Riggio (2009) states, â€Å"transf ormational leaders have the ability to inspire and motivate followers†. A transformational leader focuses on creativity and innovation (Oke, Munshi, & Walumbwa, 2009). Jobs moved Apple Inc. to the heights of success by focusing on employees and motivating them to prove their potential. It was due to

Star System Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Star System - Essay Example Studios would then, select promising young actors and would create personas for them, often by inventing new names and even new backgrounds. Some of the stars that went through the star system include Cary Grant (born Archie Leach), and Joan Crawford (born Lucille Fay LeSueur), and Rock Hudson (born Roy Harold Scherer Jr.) The evolution of the motion picture industry can be divided into roughly four phases. The technological phase, in which key film making technologies were introduced, began around 1891 and ended at 1903 with the first narrative film, The Great Train Robbery. The pre-studio era, characterized by standardization of film content into specified length and set of conventions lasted from about 1903 to 1915 with the first feature film, Birth of a Nation (McGowan, 1965). During this era the director-unit system, came to dominate. The studio era of vertically integrated firms commenced around 1915 and entered decline in 1948 with the United States Supreme Court decision that forced the Hollywood studios to exit the exhibition business. It was here that the central producer system evolved and became dominant. And finally, the post studio era began in the mid 1950s and is still with us today. The industry structure and business strategies that dominate each of these phases were crafted and negotiated during the transition periods from one phase to the next. The studio system emerged as a result of distinct strategic developments that coalesced into a strong configuration. The first development was the emergence of vertical integration, Gomery, (1986). Most of studios (though not all) saw the joint ownership of production, distribution, and exhibition as creating synergies that are essential for competitive advantage. Control of exhibition allowed the studios to offset the risks of production, and control over distribution permitted coordinated release that is essential for national marketing. Second, after a period of resistance, primarily due to fear of excessive salary demands, all the studios acquiesced to the human resource strategy star based system. Working of the System structure The central producer system, with a managerial hierarchy in the form of the top producer team, deviated from the common practices of management in the conventional film industry. First, the top producer team was often deeply involved in the conceptualisation and detail of the project. Second, and more importantly, resolving of tension between functional specialisation and project leaders was not biased in favoring of one or the other. Rather, the perennial struggle between functional departments and project managers was resolved by bringing top management downward into the process. What made the central producer system so effective was the way in which process and content were balanced and closely integrated. The producer team exerted its influence in critical transitions in the development of movie projects worked in specially designated departments. Scripts that were seen as promising were selected for further development by the team. This development consisted of intense analysis and discussion of every aspect of the script. The team brought to bear its collective experience. The script was examined from the perspective of narrative logic, motivation, and appeal to audience. At the end of the

Comparison between da vinci and Michelangelo Essay

Comparison between da vinci and Michelangelo - Essay Example He did not have the benefit of an early education and around 1483, he was sent to Milan to work as an apprentice of various artists. Leonardo showed mastery of so many fields including being a sculptor, an architect, painting and engineering. Even though Da Vinci is mainly considered an artist due to the popularity of his surviving masterpiece paintings, he was as well a pioneering scientist as evident in his numerous writings on various subjects including geology and anatomy. These writings that were done with brilliance reveal the genius of an eclectic and innovative mind that crossed so many disciplines. The natural genius exemplified a true ‘Renaissance man’ due to the humanist prominence in his works. Leonardo observed the world from a scientific perspective and always endeavored to find reason in how the world worked and why things appeared as they did, observations that were manifest in his paintings. It would be wrong to define da Vinci as an idealist since most of his work depicted realism for instance he made his look as lifelike as possible. The subjects in his early paintings had personal attributes and facial characteristics that elevated him above all others. Michelangelo on the other hand was born on 6 March 1975 in Florence, Italy to a magistrate Italy and just like Leonardo, he was apprenticed at an early age to various artists including painters and sculptors. Another similarity the two artists share in their childhood is the hard lives they lived and absence of motherly upbringing; Leonardo because of the illegitimacy of his birth while Michelangelo because of the death of his mother when he was still very young. Michelangelo, just like da Vinci, was equally exceptional in several subjects including sculptor, painting, poetry and poetry. Artworks Both artists depicted exceptional brilliance in their works that were mainly drawn from religious history, for example, Leonardo’s painting ‘The Last Supper’ and Mich elangelo’s ‘The Last Judgment’ which are depictions of events from passages of the bible. One the most distinctive features of Leonardo’s masterpiece are the portrayal of the subjects with distinct emotive facial expressions and body language, a clear indication of humanist character. Da Vinci portrayed a brilliant mastery of human anatomy when he painted his pictures realistically in terms of anatomy and posture, a subject of interest during the renaissance

Brief History Of Positive Psychology Psychology Essay

Brief History Of Positive Psychology Psychology Essay The advent of positive psychology as we know it today can be traced back to Martin E. P. Seligmans 1998 Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association (Seligman, 1999). Following a serendipitous holiday meeting between Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi in winter 1997 (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), and an epiphanic moment when gardening with his daughter Nikki (Seligman Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), Seligman realized that psychology had largely neglected the latter two of its three pre-World War II missions: curing mental illness, helping all people to lead more productive and fulfilling lives, and identifying and nurturing high talent. The advent of the Veterans Administration (in 1946) and the National Institute of Mental Health (in 1947) had largely rendered psychology a healing discipline based upon a disease model and illness ideology (Maddux, 2002; Maddux, Snyder, Lopez, 2004). With this realization, Seligman resolved to use his APA presidency to initiate a shift in psycholo gys focus toward a more positive psychology (Seligman, 1999). Seligmans presidential initiative was catalyzed by a series of meetings in Akumal, Mexico, of scholars who could inform the conceptualization and early development of positive psychology, and the establishment of the Positive Psychology Steering Committee (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Ed Diener, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Chris Peterson, and George Vaillant). From this followed the Positive Psychology Network, later to become the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, the first Positive Psychology Summit in Washington, DC, and a special issue of the American psychologist on positive psychology to mark the new millennium. Further, in the 7 years since Seligmans presidential address, there have been numerous positive psychology books, journal special issues, and the establishment of regional positive psychology networks that span the globe (Seligman, 2005). Now, in 2006, we have the first dedicated positive psychology journal, The Journal of Positive Psychology. These are remarkable achievements for any psychology movement in such a short space of time. Many readers may well be wondering why, and below we offer some thoughts in response to this question. As the leading advocate of positive psychology, Seligman has been exceptionally successful at catalyzing and uniting the efforts of the many distinguished scientists who have become some of the key players in the positive psychology movement. These include the Positive Psychology Steering Committee (Csikszentmihalyi, Diener, Jamieson, Peterson, and Vaillant) and the leaders of numerous positive psychology research centres, research pods, and grant holders (Seligman, 2005). Other notable figures include C. R. (Rick) Snyder, who edited the special issue of the Journal of social and clinical psychology (2000) and the influential Handbook of positive psychology (2002); Chris Peterson, who headed up the Values-in-Action project that led to the VIA classification of strengths and virtues (Peterson Seligman, 2004); and the winners of the prestigious Templeton Positive Psychology Prizes: Barbara Fredrickson (2000) for her work on positive emotions; Jon Haidt (2001) for his work on the posit ive moral emotion of elevation; and Suzanne Segerstrom (2002) for her work on the beneficial effects of optimism on physical health. A further critical factor in the success of many of these initiatives was the financial support that made them possible, provided by such donors as the Templeton Foundation, The Gallup Organization, the Mayerson Foundation, the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, and the Atlantic Philanthropies, among others. And given the research imbalance between psychopathology and disease, relative to human strengths and well-being, positive psychology also offered excellent opportunities for rapid scientific advances, simply because many topics had been largely ignored (Gable Haidt, 2005). Thus, the development of positive psychology was clearly shaped and energized by the considerable efforts of Seligman and the other major players in the field. Their deliberate sociology of science approach, recognizing and building on the structural forces that shape the discipline of psychology, cemented positive psychologys place through bringing in major research funding, providing considerable research leadership, engaging the wider public media, and attracting some of the brightest early career scientists through the provision of training institutes, research collaborations with senior scientists, and funding support for their work. However, it is also eminently clear from a cursory examination of the research literature that positive psychology did not begin in 1997, or 1998, or 1999, or 2000 (McCullough Snyder, 2000). In fact, positive psychology has always been with us, but as a holistic and integrated body of knowledge, it has passed unrecognized and uncelebrated, and one of the major achievements of the positive psychology movement to date has been to consolidate, lift up, and celebrate what we do know about what makes life worth living, as well as carefully delineating the areas where we need to do more. Research into positive psychology topics has gone on for decades, and might even be traced back to the origins of psychology itself, for example, in William James writings on healthy mindedness (James, 1902). In broad terms, positive psychology has common interests with parts of humanistic psychology, and its emphasis on the fully functioning person (Rogers, 1961), and self-actualization and the study of healthy individuals (Maslow, 1968). Indeed, we note that more than 50 years ago, Maslow lamented psychologys preoccupation with disorder and dysfunction: The science of psychology has been far more successful on the negative than on the positive side. It has revealed to us much about mans shortcomings, his illness, his sins, but little about his potentialities, his virtues, his achievable aspirations, or his full psychological height. It is as if psychology has voluntarily restricted itself to only half its rightful jurisdiction, and that, the darker, meaner half (Maslow, 1954, p. 354). Initially at least, positive psychology may not have paid sufficient tribute to its historical antecedents, leading to some criticisms (Taylor, 2001; Tennen Affleck, 2003). However, there is now a growing recognition that positive psychology can learn useful lessons from earlier research and theorizing, and we hope that the animosity that has sometimes characterized previous exchanges will be replaced with increasing respect and collaboration (Joseph Worsley, 2005), not least so that positive psychology can prosper through integration, rather than whither through isolation. WHAT IS POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY? In asking this question, one is faced with the inherent danger that 10 positive psychologists would provide 10 different answers. Should this be taken to suggest that nobody really knows, exactly, what positive psychology is? We would argue that this is actually far from the case, yet equally we have a very real sense that positive psychology might often be interpreted as being all things to all people. Indeed, in the course of numerous presentations to hosts of different audiences, psychologist and non-psychologist, academics and practitioners, we have the consistent experiences of eyes lighting up and people saying Ah, positive psychology, thats what we need. And when we ask what they understand by positive psychology, we receive different answers every time. In this sense, positive psychology is perceived of as a panacea for many modern ills. It is not. But, by providing a different interpretative lens, it offers a different worldview and thereby novel answers to some questions th at have been around for a long time, and shines the light of scientific inquiry into previously dark and neglected corners. Consider, for example, the following definitions of positive psychology, all taken from authoritative positive psychological sources: The field of positive psychology at the subjective level is about valued subjective experiences: well-being, contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow and happiness (in the present). At the individual level, it is about positive individual traits: the capacity for love and vocation, courage, interpersonal skill, aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness, originality, future mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom. At the group level, it is about the civic virtues and the institutions that move individuals toward better citizenship: responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility, moderation, tolerance, and work ethic (Seligman Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). What is positive psychology? It is nothing more than the scientific study of ordinary human strengths and virtues. Positive psychology revisits the average person, with an interest in finding out what works, what is right, and what is improving . . . positive psychology is simply psychology (Sheldon King, 2001). Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions (Gable Haidt, 2005). Positive psychology is about scientifically informed perspectives on what makes life worth living. It focuses on aspects of the human condition that lead to happiness, fulfilment, and flourishing (The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2005). There are certainly core themes and consistencies, but also differences in emphasis and interpretation. In thinking about how best to represent positive psychology, and how best to position its understanding in the first issue of The Journal of Positive Psychology, we believe it would be helpful to provide what we see as a definition of positive psychology that identifies and delineates the different things that it might mean to different people. We also specify what positive psychology is not, in the hope that we can lay to rest some of the ghosts of criticism that have haunted positive psychology (sometimes with justification, often with misunderstanding) since its inception. Further, as will become clear later in the article, this definition and understanding of positive psychology helps to inform and develop the potential future pathways and applications of positive psychology that we map out below (Linley et al. 2006). PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING INTRODUCTION Historic Introduction to Positive Psychological Functioning Throughout history, psychologists have offered different descriptions of positive psychological functioning, or well-being, in the context of the different branches of psychology, such as developmental or clinical psychology. From the perspective of developmental psychology, Erikson [1950] presented the concept of a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ healthy personality in the context of Freudian theory. Erikson perceives development of the personality as a process in which each personality factor is related with the others, in such a way that the personality as a whole depends on the correct development of each of its components. In his analysis of the growth process, this author talks about how the components of mental health develop over the following series of sequential stages: a sense of basic trust, a sense of autonomy, a sense of initiative, a sense of industry, a sense of ego identity, geniality, generativity and integrity. During each of these stages a conflict takes place, and the persons development will be more or less healthy, depending on how this conflict is resolved. According to Eriksons vision, development of the ego is a continuous growth process, which progresses, throughout a persons lifespan, towards a superior capacity. This same perspective of continuous growth throughout the lifespan can be found in Bà ¼hlers theory [1935], which speaks of the so-called à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢curve of life. Buhler concluded that, in spite of individual differences, there is a regular sequence in which events, experiences and achievements appear in peopleslives, and that improvement or deterioration in psychological well-being does not necessarily occur at the same rate as changes in physical well-being. From the perspective of clinical psychology, authors such as Maslow, Allport and Rogers have offered other descriptions of well-being. In his well-known pyramid, Maslow [1958] includes 5 basic needs that a person must fulfill to become fully-functioning. A person begins by satisfying the most basic needs and after fulfilling the first one, then moves on to the next, on the level immediately above. Firstly, the most basic needs for an organism are considered to be physiological ones. These are, undoubtedly, the most important in the pyramid, in that when a person loses everything in life, his strongest desire is to satisfy this type of need. The most important goal in a person without food, love or safety, will most certainly be to find food before anything else. When none of the needs are satisfied and the organism is dominated by physiological requirements, the other needs cease to exist or become less important. In second place, when the physiological needs are satisfied the need for safety takes over. When a person is in this stage, safety becomes more important than anything else, even than the physiological needs that are already covered. Maslows third need concerns the requirement to belong to a group, and for affection and love, which comes into play when the previous two needs have been satisfied. The person is now interested in forming relationships with others and becoming part of a group, and will work hard to achieve this. The person is now more interested in doing this than in anything else and forgets the little importance he attributed to this when he was hungry. Maslows fourth need corresponds to a persons self-esteem. This author considers that everyone (with the exception of some mental illnesses) needs a positive opinion of himself, self-respect and self-esteem and also to be valued by others. These needs can be classified into two sub-groups: on the one hand, a desire for fortitude, achievements, independence and freedom and, on the other hand, a desire to earn a good reputation or prestige, defined as having gained the respect or esteem of others. Finally, we come to the need for self-actualization, defined as a person realizing his full potential, which comes into play when all the other needs are satisfied. According to Maslow à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ what a man can be, he must be, and he calls this need, self-actualization. If a person has the talent to do something, he will be unsatisfied or unhappy if he cannot fully develop this part of himself, in other words, a musician must make music and a poet must write poems. This need refers to the desire for a person to develop his full potential, to seek personal growth and to become everything he is capable of being. Clearly, these desires vary greatly from one person to the next. Some people may feel self-fulfilled by becoming top sportsmen, while others will acquire a feeling of self-fulfillment by being good parents. MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING In relation to the concept of psychological well-being, Ryff [1989a] proposes a multidimensional model composed of 6 different dimensions: Self-acceptance, Positive relations with others, Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Purpose in life and Personal growth. These 6 dimensions of psychological well-being can be defined as follows: Self-acceptance: This is a key part of well-being and concerns the positive opinion a person has of himself. It does not refer to narcissistic self love or superficial self-esteem, but instead to a constructed self-regard that includes both positive and negative aspects [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. Other authors spoke about this previously, [Jung 1933; Von Franz, 1964] emphasizing that only a fully-individuated person can accept his own failures. The concept of ego integrity introduced by Erikson [1959], also refers to a person coming to terms with his own triumphs and failures in past life. This acceptance of self is constructed with an honest self-assessment; the person is aware of his personal failings and limitations, but has the love to accept and embrace himself as he is. High scores in this factor are indicators of people with a positive attitude, who recognize and accept the multiple aspect of the self, including their good and bad qualities, and can look at the past with positive feelings [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Low scores in this factor appear in people who are largely unsatisfied with themselves; they are uncomfortable with what has happened in their past life, are concerned about some of their personal qualities and want to change [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Positive relationships with others: These include the fortitude, pleasures and human delights that come from close contact with others, from intimacy and love [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. Theories about the stages of adult development also emphasize close relationships with others (intimacy) and the guidance and care of others (generativity). The importance of having positive relationships with other people is repeatedly emphasized in definitions of psychological well-being [Ryff and Singer, 1996]. High scores appear in people who have warm, satisfactory and trusting relationships with others, who are concerned about the well-being of others and have the capacity to feel empathy, affect and intimacy and understand the give and take in human relationships [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Low scores indicate that a person has few close and trusting relationships with other people, finds it difficult to be warm, open and to feel concern for the wellbeing of others. They feel isolated and frustrated with social relationships. These people do not want an important commitment with others [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Autonomy: This refers to a persons ability to march to his own drum and to pursue personal convictions and beliefs, even if these go against accepted dogma or conventional wisdom. It also refers to the ability to be alone if necessary and to live autonomously [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. Also, in theories about self-actualization, the self-actualizers are described as functioning autonomously and as being resistant to enculturation. In studies into the concept of a fully functioning person, this person is someone with an internal frame of assessment, who is mainly uninterested in what others think of him, but will evaluate himself according to his own personal standards [Ryff and Singer, 1996]. High scores in this factor show people who are self-determined and independent, capable of resisting social pressure and of acting by regulating their behavior from an internal frame of assessment. These people self-evaluate according to personal standards [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Low scores indicate people who are concerned about the expectations of others, they depend on other peoplesjudgments before making important decisions, and their thoughts and actions are influenced by social pressures [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Environmental mastery: This is another essential factor in well-being and concerns the challenge of a person mastering the environment around him. This ability requires the skills of creating and sustaining environments that are beneficial to a person [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. The ability of an individual to choose or to create environments appropriate for his mental state is defined as a characteristic of mental health. According to life-span developmental theories, for a person to adequately master his environment, he needs the ability to manage and to control complex surroundings, emphasizing from this perspective the need to move forwards in the world and to change it creatively with physical and mental activities [Ryff and Singer, 1996]. High scores in this factor are obtained by people with a sense of mastery and competence of their surroundings, who can make effective use of opportunities that arise and can choose or create contexts appropriate for their needs and personal values [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Low scores indicate a difficulty in managing daily affairs, or changing or improving their environment and making the most of opportunities that arise, and a lack of control about the world around them [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Purpose in life: This is a persons ability to find a meaning and a direction in his own experiences, and to propose and set goals in his life [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. The definition of maturity also clearly emphasizes an understanding of the purpose of life and the presence of a sense of direction and intentionality. A positively functioning person has goals, intentions and a sense of direction, and all of this helps to give a meaning to life [Ryff and Singer, 1996]. High scores in this factor appear in people who have goals in life and a sense of direction; they feel that both the past and the present of their lives has a meaning, they hold beliefs that give their lives a purpose and have goals and reasons to live [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Low scores appear in people who feel their life has no meaning and have no goals or sense of direction; they cant see any point in their past experiences [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Personal growth: This factor concerns a persons ability to realize his own potential and talent and to develop new resources. It also frequently involves encounters with adversity that require one to dig deeply to find ones inner strength [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. It is associated with being open to new experiences, which is a key characteristic of the fully functioning person. Life-span theories also explicitly emphasize the importance of continuing to grow and to tackle new tasks or challenges in the different stages of ones life [Ryff and Singer, 1996]. High scores indicate people who want to continue to develop. They regard themselves as growing and expanding, are open to new experiences, feel they are fulfilling their potential, they can see improvements in the self and in their behavior over time, and change towards ways that improve their self-knowledge and effectiveness [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. Low scores appear in people with a sense of personal stagnation, with no improvement or growth over a period of time, they feel bored and lack interest in life. They feel incapable of developing new attitudes or behaviors [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. This model was studied in a representative sample of 1108 adults over 25 years old. In the confirmatory analysis of the factors, it was found that the results supported the multidimensional model proposed, and was the model which best fitted the six factors combined together to form a factor of higher order, called psychological well-being [Ryff and Keyes, 1995]. In this same study, it was found that the factors self-acceptance and environmental mastery were highly correlated, so it was proposed to combine these factors to obtain a model with 5 factors. In any case, the authors concluded that well-being is more than simply feeling happy or satisfied with life; nor is it merely an absence of negative emotions or experiences which define the well-lived. Instead it entails having a rich perception of these experiences and successfully managing the challenges and difficulties that may arise [Ryff and Singer, 2003]. MEASURES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING Bradburn Affect Balance Scale One of the first scales that could be used to measure psychological well-being, which later served as a reference to validate subsequent scales is the BABS (Bradburn Affect Balance Scale) [Bradburn, 1969]. This is a ten-item scale divided into two subscales, one that evaluates positive affect and the other that evaluates negative affect. Each of these subscales has 5 items. These items refer to pleasant or unpleasant experiences over the past few weeks which are intentionally treated with a degree of ambiguity [Bartlett and Coles, 1998]. The score is obtained by adding one point for every yes answer and summarizing separately the responses to the positive and negative subscales, respectively. After this, the difference between the scores is calculated and a constant is added to eliminate possible negative results. The test-retest reliability was evaluated by Bradburn [1969], and in a sample of 200 people with an interval of 3 days the reliability calculated for positive affect, negative affect and the affect balance were 0.83, 0.81 and 0.76, respectively. The Short Form 36 The Short Form 36 (SF-36) was developed to measure the services provided by different health departments in the United States [Ware, Snow, Kosinski et al. 1993]. It is a self-administered scale comprised of 8 different subscales that contain Likert-type items. The 8 different concepts are each evaluated by their own scale: Physical functioning. Role limitations because of physical health problems. Bodily pain. Social functioning. General mental health (psychological distress and psychological well-being). Role limitations because of emotional problems. Vitality (energy/fatigue). General health perceptions. Both the General mental health and the Vitality subscales have psychological implications. The authors of the SF-36 scale understand mental health (measured by the General mental health scale) as part of a construct of psychological well-being with a positive pole and another negative pole [Bartlett and Coles, 1998]. This scale has received some criticism, such as that from Hunt and McKenna [1993] who question the design of the scale, both in the selection of its items and also its objective. For example, Hunt asks how many British people could answer the question à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¢Does your health limit you in your ability to do vigorous activities, such as sports, running, lifting heavy objects? when most of them dont even do this kind of activity. Hunt uses another example with the question Does your health limit you in your ability to walk a mile?. He considers this question is complicated with the factor of necessity. He explains that some people wont walk a mile even if they are in good health, while others, from necessity, because they live in the outskirts or for other reasons, will walk the mile in spite of having poor health. McHorney, Ware and Razcek [1993] provided evidence to support the validity of SF-36, showing that the mental health scale can discriminate between groups by using the mean scores. A group with minor medical conditions has a mean score of 83, a group with a serious medical condition would have a mean score of 78 and a group with a serious medical condition with psychiatric comorbidity would obtain a mean score of around 53. Satisfaction with Life Scale (Swls) This is a self-administered scale with 5 items relating to level of satisfaction with life. The possible responses are 1 to 7, where 1 indicates that the person strongly disagrees with the statement and 7 that they strongly agree [Diener, Emmons, Sem et al. 1985]. The score is the total of the responses to these 5 items and can be used to classify the person into one of the following categories: 30-35: extremely satisfied, well above average. 25-29: very satisfied, above average. 20-24: quite satisfied, average for adult United States citizens. 15-19: slightly dissatisfied, a little less than average. 10-14: dissatisfied, clearly below the average. 5-9: extremely dissatisfied, far below the average. The test-retest correlation was carried out with 2 months difference and gave a result of 0.82. The alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.87 [Diener, Emmons, Sem et al. 1985]. This is a scale to measure subjective well-being and in its original validation the authors calculate the correlation existing between SWLS and other scales to measure subjective wellbeing, including the Bradburn scale (BABS) described previously. The coefficient of correlation for Bradburns positive affect subscale is 0.5 and that for the negative affect subscale is -0.37. Psychological General Well-Being Index Short (PGWB-S) The PGWBI scale is a 22-item scale that evaluates self-perceived psychological wellbeing, each item is evaluated on a 6 point scale. The scale assesses 6 dimensions of quality of life relating to health: anxiety, depression, positive well-being, self-control, general health and vitality [Grossi, Groth, Mosconi et al. 2006]. There is a considerable amount of information about the original scale since it was used widely in studies in the United States and worldwide, and has been translated and validated in several languages, for example to Spanish by Badia, Gutierrez, Wiklund et al. [1996]. The short version of the PGWBI aims to reduce the number of items but to maintain the validity and reliability of the scale. In its final version, the PGWB-S has only 6 items that reflect 5 of the 6 items assessed in the original version (except for general health) and reproduces 90% of the variation in the result of the PGWBI. The high Cronbach alpha value (between 0.8 and 0.92) indicates a good reliability when compared with the original scale. Psychological Well-Being Scales (PGWB) One of the most widely used scales to measure psychological well-being is Ryffs scale [1989a]. This scale breaks down the construct into 6 different dimensions [Ryff, 1989b] that are analyzed separately, each with their own subscale. The dimensions analyzed are: Self-acceptance, Positive relations with others, Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Purpose in life and Personal growth. Each of these subscales has 20 likert-type items in which the patient self-assesses himself by choosing from the six possible responses, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This test has high test-retest reliability and a high internal consistency. Moreover, its convergent and discriminate validity with other measures have also been studied. The test-retest coefficients per subscale (with a retest of 6 weeks) were self-acceptance 0.85, relations with others 0.83, autonomy 0.88, environmental mastery 0.81, purpose in life 0.82 and personal growth 0.81. The alpha coefficients for the subscales were: self-acceptance 0.93, relations with others 0.91, autonomy 0.86, environmental mastery 0.90, purpose in life 0.90 and personal growth 0.87. Ryffs article gives an in-depth explanation of convergent validity [1989a]. Here, we indicate the convergent validity values for the different dimensions with Bradburns Affect Balance Scale: self-acceptance 0.55, relations with others 0.30, autonomy 0.36, environmental mastery 0.62, purpose in life 0.42 and personal growth 0.25. The fact that this covers 6 scales (120 items), combined with its good psychometric qualities have given rise to the development of shorter versions, which still maintain good fits and consistency. These versions include the one by Van Dierendonck [2004] which, with only 39 items, obtains a goodness of fit indicator (GFI) of 0.88 and Cronbachs alpha between 0.84 and 0.70 (depending on the subscale). CONCLUSION Overall, Positive Psychologys goal, as by Seligman (2002), is to develop the individual strengths of our young people so they may realize their personal potential and fulfill the second goal, that of creating a thriving community of civically responsible and productive members. Psychological well-being has been reviewed immensely. Moreover, the take-home message is that positive emotions are worth cultivatin

Platos Republic :: essays research papers

Why do men behave justly? Is it because they fear societal punishment? Are they trembling before notions of divine retribution? Do the stronger elements of society scare the weak into submission in the name of law? Or do men behave justly because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, regardless of its rewards and punishments, a good thing in and of itself? How do we define justice? Plato sets out to answer these questions in the Republic. He wants to define justice, and to define it in such a way as to show that justice is worthwhile in and of itself. He meets these two challenges with a single solution: a definition of justice that appeals to human psychology, rather than to perceived behavior. Plato’s strategy in the Republic is to first explicate the primary notion of societal, or political, justice, and then to derive an analogous concept of individual justice. In Books II, III, and IV, Plato identifies political justice as harmony in a structured political body. An ideal society consists of three main classes of people—producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc.), auxiliaries (warriors), and guardians (rulers); a society is just when relations between these three classes are right. Each group must perform its appropriate function, and only that function, and each must be in the right position of power in relation to the others. Rulers must rule, auxiliaries must uphold rulers’ convictions, and producers must limit themselves to exercising whatever skills nature granted them (farming, blacksmithing, painting, etc.) Justice is a principle of specialization: a principle that requires that each person fulfill the societal role to which nature fitted h im and not interfere in any other business. At the end of Book IV, Plato tries to show that individual justice mirrors political justice. He claims that the soul of every individual has a three part structure analagous to the three classes of a society. There is a rational part of the soul, which seeks after truth and is responsible for our philosophical inclinations; a spirited part of the soul, which desires honor and is responsible for our feelings of anger and indignation; and an appetitive part of the soul, which lusts after all sorts of things, but money most of all (since money must be used to fulfill any other base desire). The just individual can be defined in analogy with the just society; the three parts of his soul achieve the requisite relationships of power and influence in regard to one another.