According to Edward T. Hall intimate zone is the spatial
zone in which close friends, lovers, children and close family members mostly converse. People hug or embrace and whisper or talk very quietly. Highly personal
topics are discussed in this zone
Answer:
The correct answer is "The fundamental attribution error".
Explanation:
The fundamental attribution error is the human tendency to emphasize personal characteristics instead of analyzing the contextual or situational explanation for other people's behavior.
<u>For example, when someone fails a test, the other students may think that their classmate failed because he is lazy or he didn't study enough and not because the questions of the test were wrongly formulated</u>.
In this particular case, the first attribution that one does to the jam is that the couple did it because they are bad communicators, only because they were arguing moments before, <u>rather than attributing the failure to get the frame to through the doorway to the possibility that it might be too big for the doorway.</u>
In conclusion, this is an example of the fundamental attribution error.
Answer: <u>Sensation , Perception
</u>
Explanation:
Sensation is defined as sensing ability persisted by a person through touching, seeing,hearing,smelling or tasting.Sensed information is transmitted to brain in raw form to give it certain definition through recongnization.
Perception is the ability of recognizing and defined the sensed information.Information is perceived to give it a sense.
According to the question,activation of retina receptors for seeing is the sensation occurring in eyes.Anna's ability to interpret and perceive these sensation for recognization of words while reading is perception.
The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars... overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it's small, amateurish, and under-funded, it's likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in "fork over your lunch money, weakling.") Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen "fire soldier-boys" on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal "problems." In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
<span>Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of African countries find them pretty handy.
</span>
Also, keep this quote in mind
<span>"It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war"</span>
