spartaned

Essay topics: People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. Decision making is a process in which the integrated brain of a being summarizes of inputs, activating all the nodes in the neural network that is our brain, be it our animal brain - or the homo sapiens part of it - and conclude with a final decision - how do we act. What separate us from most animals is the ability to discern between logic and emotions. However, humanity has not evolved to the stage in which we can make impartial decisions, in which zero or little emotion is involved. We are a product of evolution and as such, imprinted instincts and emotions may cloud and obscure our mind - and thus, the decision process itself. All societies today are governed by a common structure, where a house of representatives and a high court make strategic decision for society, constructing a set of laws for society to follow - and to be judged upon. One cannot imagine a judge acting by emotion alone - a proper conduct is to judge impartially by the law, with a cold and calculated mind and not let the emotional state obscure his vision. Similarly, politicians must subdue national whims of extremists. For example, laws of rent control, may be very alluring, accompanied with heart breaking stories of homeless families, yet it is in the macro scale, that rent control would hurt society by crippling capitalism. Decision making is not a matter of state alone - we encounter them on an daily basis, be it little ones, as when to wake up - to give in to drowsiness and excuse it by claiming sleeping is healthy - or larger ones - as which house should we purchase. These examples can generalized, as the statement holds, to a process in which we act by emotion and later justify the emotion based decision to ourselves. However, though we might not be aware of it - we would be lying to ourselves. A person with limited resource should not buy a high end car or out of reach dream house by the whim of a minute - such a decision will cost more in the future, such as in enlarged mortgage house payments. However, it is not an absolute truth that we must always make logical decision based on cerebral thought. Motherly instincts guide mothers to make decisions imprinted on the primordial brain, decisions that any mother would instinctively make. Thus, it would best to understand that as human beings, though we rely, perhaps too often, on our instincts, life is not black and white - our instincts have evolved through a process of million years and did bring us to this very day, where can choose which set of decision making should we use - our primal - or our intelligence. In sum, people make decisions that rely both on intelligence and emotion, but those who know how to discern when to use either, would prove to be intelligible decision makers.

Hi, first time poster - read the instruction and will comment on other essays. Not sure I've put enough emphasis on the extra instruction - would love feedback. Thanks! Prompt Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. -------------------------------------------- Scandals have been part of society from the beginning modern culture, dating back to ancient Greece. Scandals are, in essence, a deviation from society's decorum. They draw public attention, since they have profound impact on society, while, in deep contrast, they are the result of actions of a few. Scandals draw public attention to specific issues, forcing public discussion and immediate action and help cure society ailments in the long run. Scandals are the public manifestation of internal issues of society, public figures or organizations, either within the private or public sectors. Scandals trigger public discussion, regarding the fundamental issue lying within, for which the scandal is only the symptom, or ‘tip of the iceberg’, if you will. The discussion that the scandal incites is beneficial, since public attention is more easily drawn to short term issues which are easier to comprehend, when measured on the vast scale of the entire population and political parties. Nevertheless, by requiring immediate action, they call forth the discussion on the fundamental issue, for which long term solutions are required. Opposed to public speaker and reformers, who try to incite public discussion for long term solutions directly, scandals focus public attention, through the symptom, to the core problem. The public’s reaction to scandals can be compared to a body’s reaction to a vaccine. Analogous to a castrated virus of the flu vaccine, the scandal effect is local, though it does take its toll, triggering a weakened response of the body, such as a slight fever or headaches. On the long term, the benefit of addressing the problems caused by the scandal outweigh the harmful effects it may cause. On the other hand, public speakers and reformers can be compared life-quality supplements. For example, one may take vitamin pills, thus improving the overall quality of the body and prevent most illnesses, analogous to a public discussion on minimum wage. Yet, these supplements cannot address ailments, and from time to time, a new, more destructive ailment may present itself. It is through scandals, public discussion and action, society learns how to correct itself,such as the body learns how to deal with once deadly disease. Though scandals are beneficial for society social health on the long run and on the public scale, it is important to understand two sides of the coin. Scandals often focuses journalists on the lives of individuals. Those who the scandal was caused by, and their surroundings, causing harm to their families, friends, co-workers, and the organizations they are a part of. Though it is true the fault lies with those who are responsible for the scandal, nonetheless, their surroundings social circles are those who may pay the public price, in the right of public interest. In conclusion, scandals, while unavoidable, can help cure society ailments. While public speakers and reformers, act as in to help shape society, scandals act as a shockwave, forcing deep thinking and actions, giving society new directions, helping shape its moral codes and march into a brighter future.