1 Socialization is a continuous process.
2 It helps to develop human behaviour.
3 It takes place formally or informally.
Explanation:
hpe it helps!
Activation of the <u>Serotonin </u>neurons of the forebrain would be expected to <u>suppress </u>aggressive attack.
Numerous studies link elevated impulsive and aggressive behaviors with reduced serotonin metabolites. The opposing association has been substantiated by therapies targeted at directly reducing serotonin cell activity, despite the fact that pharmaceutical reduction of serotonin is linked to an increase in aggression.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether any of the relationships observed may be caused by changed serotonin activity during development. Here, we used two Pharmacogenetic techniques to selectively and reversibly decrease the firing of serotonin neurons in behaving animals in transgenic mice.
A persistent reduction in serotonin neuron firing was linked to increased aggression, as demonstrated by conditional over expression of the serotonin 1A receptor (Htr1a) in serotonin neurons.
To learn more about Serotonin here
brainly.com/question/9793167
#SPJ4
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
Answer:
Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto power over new state laws was rejected.
Explanation:
mark me as barinlest and follow me
