Critical thinking could be used in this example to actively engage with the proposition and propose an alternative or another proposition. Maybe in my own life experience I've known women who drive better than man, so I already have first hand example of how this is a misbelieve, but in order to prove this i have to go a step further.
---
Skepticism should refrain us from making statement from things we don't know yet. The proposition is a generality and thus already tell us that is a prejudice, but moreover when we are talking about things without having knowledge is a good scientific practise to step back and know the argument before speaking.
---
Objectivity is what we should aim when examine datas and proposition. Once we have the data, we could objectevely tell if this proposition respects the truth or not. Some importance should also be given to the motivation and the qualitative data, and not only the raw quantitative data, as reading and analyse only one type could lead to more misunderstading.
---
Curiosity is what we should always bring to the table in everyday matter. In the proposition, we could step back and ask why this is a well consolidates rumour, or why are the reasons behind this saying. Curiosity should be the driven to explain the world in a more complex and rich way comparing to the way other people may live.
---
Other examples of proposition that could be examine by the scientific approach are almost endless. "Women are not good at STEM fields" for example, or "Men generally are more qualified leaders". It is possible to argue that every proposition could be examine in a scientific approach, and maybe we all should do it so.
1.There are four fundamental ways to obtain U.S. citizenship.
Citizenship through:
1. Naturalization.
2.Acquisition.
3.Derivation.
4.Birth.
2. So they can get used to the country, know its laws, learn about the country itself.
Hope this helps, please mark brainliest!
Answer:
They study the role of heredity in behaviour and mental processes such as psychological disorders, criminal behaviour and thinking.
Explanation:
A psychologists studies the mind of individuals with respect to their emotions, reactions to situations, mental illness, etc: On the basis of their study they conclude about the nature and reaction in near future of their clients.
When we talk about biologically oriented psychologists, it naturally comes to the note that these psychologists will somewhere connect everything with the hormonal behaviour, or that naturally comes to an individual from their parents that is in heredity.
They consider the natural human behaviour more dependant upon their heredity and hormones, as that is all biological.
The correct answer is d. A conditioned response.
Ivan Pavlov was a Russian scientist interested in studying how digestion works in mammals. According to Pavlov, the dogs were demonstrating a conditioned response. He explained it like this: there's a neutral stimulus (the bell), which by itself will not produce a response, like salivation. There's also a non-neutral or unconditioned stimulus (the food), which will produce an unconditioned response (salivation).
I believe the answer is: <span>agoraphobia
The victim's perception on which places they considered to be 'safe' would be depended on the severity of their </span><span>agoraphobia.
In extreme cases, the victim of </span><span>agoraphobia would perceive all places outside their own home to be dangerous and choose to live completely excluded from society.</span>
