Reciprocity By John Edlund, Brad Sagarin, And Brian Johnson

In 1872, John Gast created a masterpiece that not only exemplified what American society was like, but global advancement as well. This artwork, rightfully titled “American Progress” is a clear display of the journey Americans were taking in attempt to civilize the world to their standards, what would become known as the White Man’s burden. While we continue to call it a burden, it seemed anything but to those on the “civilized” side of it. “American Progress” shows the joy of bringing enlightenment to those believed to be in need of help. Despite being labeled as a strenuous responsibility, fulfilling the White Man’s burden was something powerful countries enjoyed and by accomplishing this onus they themselves created, they are seen as the more powerful and therefor developed members of society.

Reciprocity is very much more than just a tool. It is also a clue about who we humans are and what we need, a clue that will be important for understanding the end of a larger story. There are many times that I experience reciprocity, positive and negative. One example is when someone does something for me I say, “Thank you,” and in theory they should respond back with “Your welcome,” correct? You would think so. Most of the time I receive it in return, but there are times when people fail to politely respond back to the other person. This is an example of a positive experience, unless the person

Top students across the nation compete for the title of valedictorian each year, although very few actually receive it. Much to the detriment of the students, the competition can become sophomoric and pointless yet remaining intense and cut throat. In her article, “Best In Class”, Margaret Talbot conveys the message that the competition of valedictorian has unfavorable consequences through her use of diction and testimonies.

In the essay “The Believing Game” by Peter Elbow, he discusses the concepts of taking the emotion out of arguments and using logic by seeing another person’s opinion or ideology through their eyes. Elbow uses “The Doubting Game” as his counter-argument in the essay and speaks of how most humans are naturally conditioned to over-analyze any argument that is presented before them. Elbow, while making some insightful points to the way humans think, presents his essay with too much emotion and bias. Morality is not considered in his essay and Elbow is not presenting the realistic way most people think or argue.

Freedom. Doesn’t that word make you just want to leap out of your seat and change the world? For us it does. We have been trapped under Great Britain's rule since the dawn of the colonies existence. It’s time we take charge and fight, rather than stand back and let them walk all over us. We deserve to be able to use our own voices to say whatever we want. We have the right to do what we want when we want, after all, we are all created equal by God. But, we are no match for the great nation. They have a much stronger army, a well developed government, and loads of guns and all sorts of weaponry. For now, we must live by and honor their rules. But one day, this won’t be the case anymore. We, the colonists, shall remain loyal to Britain because we believe that a great deal of the claims made by some of the Patriots are false. If we are to remain loyal, we expect Britain to continue protecting us, keep the taxes off, and allow us to use the structure of trade and settlement they set up for us.

Perhaps the most powerful, fluent, and forceful paper promoting liberal Christianity is indeed Harry Emerson Fosdick's 1922 sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”. Fosdick seemed as if he was a very captivating human being in history during his time of existence. He wrote one of the most engaging papers that I have yet to read thus this far. It was definitely a wise decision to go ahead and read the two articles discussing fundamentalism to catch me up so that I did not have trouble keeping up with Fosdick's movement that he established in his sermon. Initially, I believe that the arising church is, amongst other things, is a rectifying of liberalism for a postmodern age. And I'm convinced that the same claims made by Fosdick in 1922 are just what we hear form emergents today. There is nothing new that lies under the sun today. It is only natural that the specifics argued for by the modernists are not those of the postmodern emergents.

The title of the book "Running on empty", by Peter G. Peterson tells what really happens behind the scenes of both Democratic party and Republican party, and how in their own way they are bankrupting our future. "Running on Empy" provides a cogent look at americans political, and physical deterioration describing the financial crisis in the United States. Having hands on experience with this several political and govenment views Mr. Peterson discuss how our country is totally in debt and how we as americans can rebuild our future. Being a republican Peterson calls out mistakes made by both parties being equally irresponsible and presenting nonpartisan solutions. As a Democrate I believe that the democratic party focuses more on everyone being equally happy and healthy and ignores the fact that they could help the financial crisis by decreasing some of the social programs they 've created that help people in our society. I truly believe that some of the programs that were created by the democrats have cost our citizems an exponential amt of money, with minimal improvement to our society. Also , a lot of these elected programs have handicapped our society. I personally believe that if you teach a person to fish , they will always eat. But, if you just feed people the fish you 've caught , it promotes laziness and the people will eventually starve. My take on this comparison is that the democrats only supply the fish to the less unfortunate and the Republicans teach the less

Firstly, this essay will discuss the work by Stanley Milgram (1963) and his obedience studies which used technology to see how far people would obey an authority figure. I will follow this with the ethics argument that surrounded it, noting the issues raised by Diana Baumrind (1964). An updated version of Milgram’s (1963) experiment, carried out by Mel Slater and colleagues (2006) which used technology to replicate it. Moving on, friendship will be examined with the work of Brian Biegelow and John La Gaipa (1975), and other work by William Corsaro (2006).

Jerome Karabel has explored many areas of the college admissions process and is unhappy with his findings. In his text, “The Battle Over Merit”, Karabel concludes that the college admissions process has to be updated, so that everyone gets a fair and equal chance to get into these institutions. He includes a substantial argument of how college admissions have evolved and has been initially favoring one social group. This justification shows the concept of privilege and a need for inclusion. Karabel believes that race shouldn 't be a factor of change, but socio-economic backgrounds should be a way for students to get help and get into these schools, because they need it the most. He also brings up the idea of power and politics and that the

In the book Revolutionary Characters by Gordan Wood, the degree in which he portrays the personality and personal philosophies that informed the politics of these early American leaders, especially Thomas Jefferson, shows that contrary to popular belief that these men were not some unflawed perfect beings, but they are just like us with their many fears and insecurities. These flaws appear in all of the founding fathers and this adds a level of realism to them. It also shows that flaws are a part of human nature.

Humans have at least one problem to fix, yet they do not know how to fix it. Some people want an easy way out while others think about it too hard or too much. Is there a specific way to solve a problem when not all people have the same mentality? In Think Like a Freak book the authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner persuade readers to think in a way never done before in other words to step out of the comfort zone and experiment before acting. To be able to do this it is necessary to stop complicating the circumstance trying to impress others. Levitt and Dubner themselves say it is difficult to think this way however the results show positive outcomes. Not everyone will be persuaded to think critically to

“When a rule is enforced, the person who is supposed to have broken it may be seen as a special kind of person, one who cannot be trusted to live by the rules agreed on by the group. He is regarded as an outsider.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Why do we show altruism? Social and evolutionary biologists, psychologists, economists and philosophers alike have made many attempts at providing an explanation for altruism. As a result, many opposing theories have developed over the years. In this essay, I will attempt to explain altruism as the presence of an altruistic gene which is selected for by natural selection in terms of kin selection. I will explore evidence supporting this theory, as well as evidence pointing to psychological explanations such as reciprocal altruism, social norms and primitive sympathy.

The Effect of Personal Characteristics on Prosocial Behaviour In this essay, it will be first looked at the effect personal characteristics have on Prosocial behaviour including the level of moral reasoning of individuals, vicarious emotional reactions, altruism, guilt, self concern, the Just World hypothesis and also the biological approach. Secondly it will be looked at how being part of a group can effect an individuals Prosocial behaviour. Intra-group factors that will be covered include the Bystander Effect, modelling and norms. Finally, factors concerning immediate and larger context will be covered.