Answer:
Explanation:
<u>One of the examples of behavior that would be considered deviant in one society and not in the other is the eating of certain animals. The examples are:</u>
- Some societies in India consider the cow a sacred animal and never would consume beef.
- Muslim societies do not eat pork meat.
- Insects are considered a tasty snack in many countries, including Thailand, while it would be considered gross by many people from the west.
- While some of the western European countries (like France and Belgium) have specialized butcher shops and restaurants for horse meat, eating it would most likely be considered taboo in the US or UK.
- The most radical example is the eating of dogs, which occurs in some Asian countries, most notably China. There is even a whole festival for dog meat consumption in Yulin, and every year there are protests across the globe because of this event. Slaughtering dogs for meat consumption is prohibited in the US and plenty of other countries.
<u>With all of this, we can conclude that some food consumption can be seen as deviant in some parts of the world, while in others it is a normal occurrence and part of the every-day diet.</u>
Despite various taboos and laws, what we have to understand is that our connection to the animals is culturally constructed. The fact that people of the US feel closer to dogs, cats, and horses, but not to sheep and pigs, is not the fact supported by nature. There is nothing in nature itself and the nutrition of horses, insects, and various other species that prevents us to eat them. These deviances surrounding different meats are all culturally constructed. <u>This does not mean they are less real or that we should eat all the animals, just that we have to realize that our ways are no naturally more or less right than someone else’s.</u>
Answer: chemical reaction
Explanation: It’s a equation
Answer: A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss aversion will provide additional motivation
.
Options:
A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss
aversion will provide additional motivation
B. designating a charity should be more effective because it avoids all potential for loss
C. it shouldn’t matter whether one designates a charity or anti-charity
D. self-interest biases generally keep people from choosing the anti-charity
Explanation:
The study of behavioral Economics shows that people are more driven by the loss of fear than the hope of gain. This is known as loss aversion. In commitment contracts where penalty money is promised to a charity or an anti-charity if the goal is not achieved, those who promise their money to an anti-charity tend to achieve their goals more. The same also applies when comparing this group and those who do not have to forego anything if they do not meet their target.
This is because giving to a charity will still seem beneficial while losing the money to an anti-charity will seem like a total loss.
The answer is letter B. Plato studied higher-level mental processes such as learning in 287 B.C. Cognitive psychology is the study of mental processes like language use, perception, attention, problem solving, creativity and thinking. Plato said that the brain or mind is the center of all the mental processes.
