Answer:
The correct answer is ''may be produced through classical conditioning.''
Explanation:
The Little Albert experiment was conducted by John B Watson and his collaborator Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University in 1920. They set out to replicate Pavlov's dog experiment in humans.This experiment was an empirical demonstration of the classical conditioning procedure. It is a phenomenon that associates a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus until they produce the same result.Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist described for the first time the associative learning system that we know today as Classical Conditioning, which bases the behavior of animals (and Watson wanted to replicate Pavlov's dog experiment in humans) on a stimulus-response sequence.Watson believed that human behavior should be studied exclusively on the basis of learned behaviors. It devalued the implication of genetic elements, the unconscious or instincts.
Answer: a
Explanation: the definition of libel is “A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.”, so the answer would be a since they are saying a false statement.
<span>In the Buss study, concrete predictions are made: women will value more than men, ambition, industriousness, good economic prospects and ability to obtain resources. Men will value physical attractiveness and reproductive capacity more than women. When choosing a partner, women value more than men the ability to obtain resources and men value more the physical and youth.</span>
Answer: Friends are mostly peer or per group
Explanation:
Peer group or peer is the group of people that contain the individual who have almost same age as the person along with similar interest,background, work social status. These members of peer group can influence and impact behavior of each other .
According to the question,Elizabeth does not understand the concept of friend are mostly peer as they have similar age and interest. Thus, boss and professor did not accept invitation for coffee of Elizabeth as they are not her peer. They do not belong to same age group and social background.
Answer:
<em>After a Chinese scientist announced this week the birth of twin girls whose DNA he had altered many months earlier when they were microscopic, single-cell embryos, condemnation of this previously secret experiment was swift and absolute. Scientists and ethicists from around the world called it “premature” and “irresponsible.”
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>The majority of this criticism is motivated by major concerns about safety — we simply do not yet know enough about the impact of CRISPR-Cas9, the powerful new gene-editing tool, to use it create children. But there’s a second, equally pressing concern mixed into many of these condemnations: that gene-editing human eggs, sperm, or embryos is morally wrong.
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>That moral claim may prove more difficult to resolve than the safety questions, because altering the genomes of future persons — especially in ways that can be passed on generation after generation — goes against international declarations and conventions, national laws, and the ethics codes of many scientific organizations. It also just feels wrong to many people, akin to playing God.</em>
<em></em>