Answer:
Explanation:
The current virus is a perfect example. We get our shots or we are labeled unthinking enemies of society.
The media has done absolutely no investigating about why people would oppose getting a shot, and people have no interest in knowing why there is opposition.
We believe what we are told, but some very knowledgeable people have opposed the vaccine and the hysterical reaction to it. Some have been health professionals. I may not agree with them, but they should be heard. And they should be respected to have their own opinion. They are acting on their principles. The governments in Canada have abandoned what I call 1st Amendment rights. An opposing opinion is never to be completely disregarded.
The Bible always emphasizes that the wise listen much and speak little. That's not a bad way to live.
We are forced by the current situation, not to speak and just do (as we are told). That's a very dangerous behavior pattern. But that's what we have.
I think I've described a cultural pattern. We have abandoned certain behaviors (constitutions and rights ) and developed others. We are not obeying laws. We are obeying mob behavior (which a cultural thing) and we are wrong to do so.
The unconditioned stimulus occurs, eliciting an unconditioned response.
A neutral stimulus is paired with the unconditioned stimulus.
The neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus, when it elicits a conditioned response.
<u>Explanation</u>:
Conditioning is the process of connecting the environmental stimulus and the behavior. A classical conditioning is a learning process that commonly occurs during repeated pairing of two stimuli.
Operant conditioning is a learning method in which learning or change in behavior occurs through reinforcement or punishment.
The classical conditioning helps in understanding the behavior of the humans and animals. Generally the classical conditioning occurs due to pairing of the conditioned stimulus with the unconditioned stimulus.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
I did a mission project in 4th grade so yeah they did
Answer:
Bogardus Social Distance Scale
Explanation:
According to my research on studies conducted by various psychologists, I can say that based on the information provided within the question these items illustrate the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. This is a psychological scale that empirically measure people's willingness to participate in social contacts of varying degrees of closeness with members of diverse social groups. Which in this situation seems to be Aliens.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
The primary issue of controversy in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision involves affirmative action.
Explanation:
Barbara Stuart, a white student from Michigan, applied to the University of Michigan School of Law, but failed. At the time, the student's grade point average was 3.8 and her legal test score was 161 points. In 1997, the student filed a lawsuit against the university for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Groot said that the school used race as the main reason for giving entrance to students, giving African Americans, Hispanics, and Indians more opportunities for admission than Caucasians or Asians.
The court finally said that the University of Michigan's pursuit of racial diversity aimed at adhering to the strong interests of the government for the purpose of educational benefits, so it was found not to violate the Equal Protection Clause.
In this context, affirmative action refers to socio-political measures that are intended to counteract negative discrimination against social groups in the form of social disadvantage through targeted benefits. “Affirmative” in this sense means the special confirmation and support of such groups. The approach is controversial because, according to critics, it replaces existing discrimination with renewed, opposite discrimination.