the answer is: focus on the most obvious aspect of an emotional situation to the neglect of other relevant information.
The limited cognitive development that preschoolers have made them unable to identify various aspects of human emotion.
Most likely, the can understand when they are happy or upset, But they still can really understand the reason why they are feeling that way.
Primary caretakers such as Parents usually play a really crucial role in this scenario. Abusive parents for example, overtime would make the children grow up thinking that abusive relationship as normal and shouldn't be resulted in negative emotion. This make them become more likely to be involved in abusive relationship with another person.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
When faced with a conflict between law and conscience, a person who is at the six and highest stage in Kohlberg's theory of moral development will follow the conscience, even though the decision might involve a personal risk.
Lawrence Kohlberg developed six stages of moral development. He received the inspiration for the works of Jean Piaget. The different stages changes in feelings and behaviors regarding "right" and "wrong." The lowest level is pre-conditional reasoning, the lowest level of moral development. The sixth and highest level of moral in Kohlberg's stages is called "universal ethical principles," where people always do what is right.
It's definitely not in a theocracy: those usually favour the majorities.
Also migrant labors don't specifically favour minorities.
Now, between democracies and command economies the choice is very hard, as it depends more on the specific country. So for example in many places the role of the minorities rose in command economies, since they went against the patriarchy (in China this was the case for example, the role of women in China improved drastically, while women and minorities are still struggling in Japan, which is a democracy). On the other hand, Nazi Germany was also a command economy, and yet it was very bad for minorities
I would say that the question is too complex to give just one answer, but I would also argue for option d)
Answer:
Milton Friedman was an American economist who wrote fundamental works in the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, economic history and statistics. In 1976 he received the Alfred Nobel Memorial Award for Economics for his achievements in the field of analysis of consumption, history and the theory of money and for his demonstration of the complexity of the stability policy. Friedman is regarded alongside John Maynard Keynes as the most influential economist of the twentieth century.
Friedman, who considered himself a classic liberal, represented the Chicago School, and emphasized the advantages of a free market and the disadvantages of government intervention. His basic attitude is expressed in his bestseller Capitalism and Freedom (1962). In it he called for the minimization of the role of the state in order to promote political and social freedom. In his television series Free to Choose, Friedman explained the functions of the free market and emphasized in particular that other economic systems could not adequately solve a society's social and political problems.
The underlying cause that led to the founding of the La Raza Unida party was because Political, social, and economic institutions were stuctured to look down on Latinos.
<h3>What is the underlying cause that led to the founding of the La Raza Unida party?.</h3>
Generally, the La Raza unida party was created in 1970 and it was a fans favorite throughout Southern California and Texas because of its Latino Population.
In conclusion. The La Raza Unida Party was created because Political, social, and economic institutions were designed to exclude Latinos.
Read more about History
brainly.com/question/6838058
