Answer:
The answer is superego.
Explanation:
<u>Sigmund Freud-</u> He is an Australian neurologist who was born on May 6, 1856. He became popular for his <u><em>psychoanalytic theory of personality development.</em></u><u> </u>This is now known as the Sigmund Freud's theory. According to him, a person's personality can be formed according to the different structures of the mind, <em>the id, ego and superego. </em>
Id- refers to the innate instinctive impulses. This is based on the pleasure principle that one's needs should be gratified immediately. For example, when a person is hungry, he has the motivation to eat. However, this is not always the situation. There are times when you need to be patient in order to eat. If the person cannot eat, it causes tension on his end. So, instead of eating, he will dream about the food he wanted to eat.
Ego- Ego is a structure of the mind that provides reality check. It helps the id achieve its purpose in an appropriate manner. For example, the hungry person above cannot eat yet because he is in a meeting, the ego will allow him to eat after the meeting ends.
Superego- The superego upholds the internal moral standards and ideals of the society. This includes the ideals taught by our parents and schools. It now gives guidelines or rules for a person to do what is morally right or wrong.
The answer is to help keep peace (With things like laws) and to keep everything running smoothly So things don't get out of control.
Answer:
void
Explanation:
According to my research on different types of contracts, I can say that based on the information provided within the question this agreement between Skye and Nathan is an example of a void contract. A void contract is a formal agreement that is effectively illegitimate and unenforceable from the moment it is created. Which in this situation it is void because Nathan is clinically insane, thus not able to actually agree to anything.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Hi! Do you have answer choices? Or do you have to create your own answer(s)?
In the presently stated speech, Laura would be arguing from the point of causation.
<u>Explanation:</u>
When arguing from the point of causation, the speaker or presenter would base her arguments and claims concerning evidence which proves that certain events almost always bring about the same results, or likewise, certain events would always almost eradicate the effects of the events.
Hence here, Laura is speaking from the point of causation.
