Investing in stocks and bonds Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Investing in stocks and bonds - Term Paper Example Consequently, the value of stock for that corporation tend to reflect the corporation’s earnings and experiences, going up when it is profitable and down when the company is experiencing losses. In essence, the higher the return potential, the higher the amount of risk associated with the stock. For example, investors in stock expect a high rate of return since they do not have a set schedule for repayment or fixed rate of return such as those in fixed-income securities. Even within this world of stocks, variations do exist in reward and return (Tyson, 2011). Blue chip stocks refer to stocks issued by corporations, which are firmly established within their given industries and possess a long history of paying dividends and producing earnings. Small capitalization stocks refer to shares from companies that are not that well established but have tremendous potential for growth. This can translate into a significant return for the investor. However, this comes with an increased potential for a greater decrease in value than would be expected from, say, a more established company. Bonds, on the other hand, involve making loans to corporations and other entities by investors (Wyckoff, 2009). Other entities normally involve various branches of the government that issue bonds to attract injection of capital without giving the investor managing control. In effect, the holder of the bond holds an IOU. If we were to invest in bonds, we would not expect any share in profits and would get a fixed investment return. This return is an interest rate on the bond and is also referred to as the coupon rate. It is calculated as the total percentage of the initial offering price of the bond. Bonds, just like common stocks, have a fluctuating market value, and if they are sold before their maturity date, they could produce a loss or gain in principle value (Wyckoff, 2009). If we were to invest

Developing a theory of mind at four years

Developing a theory of mind at four years Theory of Mind is a term introduced by Premack and Woodruff, (1978) it is considered the ability to infer the current mental state of others, their beliefs and desires (Gazzaniga, Ivry, Mangun, 2009). Theory of mind is vital in our understanding that others knowledge may differ from our own, it allows one to manipulate and interpret the actions and contemplations of another in terms of theoretical and intentional states. As such, we are able to surmise the mental states of others although they may not communicate them with visible cues, such as what they may be thinking or feeling, as well as the ability to distinguish between reality and belief. One of the major ongoing debates within developmental psychology is centred around the claim that a theory of mind does not develop until the age of 4. Although many agree with the claim there are countless theorists who believe that a theory of mind is innate therefore it must be present at birth (Fodor, 1992). This essay will be assessing contributing research towards this debate by looking at evidence for and against the claim in order to make an informed decision according to supporting research. One of the most effective ways to test for a theory of mind in young children is through the false-belief task, as passing the task indicates that the child is aware that others may have incorrect beliefs about the world. Wimmer and Perner (1983) found, from their unexpected transfer test, that a fully developed theory of mind does not appear before the age of 3 to 4 years. In this test infants were told to watch a scene in which a character, Maxi places chocolate in a drawer and walks away. While he is away his mother takes out the chocolate and grates some of it onto a cake, places it elsewhere then leaves. Maxi then returns and the experimenter asks where will Maxi look for the chocolate? Results found that children above the age of 5 had no problem attributing to Maxi a false belief. The study was later repeated to children under the age of 4, when it was found that children under the age of around 3.7 years failed to answer questions correctly. Thus this provides strong evidence that a theory of mind does not develop until around 4 years of age. Another classic experiment by Baron-Cohen et al (1985) was the Sally-Anne task where the experimenter had adopted similar characteristics used originally by Wimmer and Perner (1983) and tested Autistic children, normal children and those suffering from Downs syndrome for the presence of a Theory of Mind. It was found that the majority of normal and Downs syndrome children answered all questions correctly whereas autistic children found it difficult to comprehend what had happened and tended to answer incorrectly. Although Baron- Cohen et al were testing for a theory of mind in Downs syndrome and Autistic children, it should be noted that normal children and Downs syndrome children both appear to have a theory of mind; hence they would pass the task at 4 years old. An autistic person however would not have a theory of mind as their minds do not function in the same way as a normal child, therefore one may suggest that a theory of mind does appear at 4 years but not for people with aut ism. A further piece of evidence lies with Avis Harris who tested the universality of the false-belief task in their study of the Baka children of Cameroon. The Baka is a traditional, hunting and gathering, non literate society where none of the adults or children can read or have been schooled. Using the original false-belief task, Avis Harris tested 34 children aged between 3-5 years. Findings were similar to those in Western countries. However the results of this study shows flexibility in the age in which theory of mind develops. It is not necessarily 4 years within the Baka community which implies that there may not be universality in the age at which theory of mind appears to be present; the age is not 4 years it is in fact between 3 and 5. Another researcher who has tested for universality in theory of mind is Astington (1996) who gave the false-belief test to Quechua children in Peru, and Tainae children of New Guinea. The results were very incompatible with those from Western countries. Young children and even adolescents could not recognise false-beliefs in others, hence no theory of mind at the age of 4. This provides strong evidence of cultural variation, as the task has consistently proved that children aged 4 are able to answer correctly within most Western countries and this is still likely to be the case if ever replicated. It may however, be considered inappropriate to impose our Western false-belief task on people who have their own practises and teachings within their societies. This does not mean other cultures have no understanding of the mind, they may simply have their own means of perceiving others minds. Hence, children of other cultures and countries may have a theory of mind at the age of 4; we perhaps need to conduct research of a different method in such societies rather than the false-belief task. Due to the volume of research in support of the claim that theory of mind appears around the age of 4, psychologists have come up with theories to explain why this the happens to be the case. The Representational Deficit theory, also known as the theory-theory suggests that children develop beliefs or theories about other people, revise them and use them in a similar to manner to how we use scientific theories. As such, by using these theories, children are able to make predictions about new evidence, to interpret evidence, and to explain evidence (Gopnik, 2003). The theory-theory explanation is essentially a constructivist account as a rational understanding of the mind occurs by means of everyday theoretical constructs. Infants instigate with an initial primitive understanding of the mind, they accumulate data through interaction with the world and others around them which leads to a theory change and thus the development of a mature theory of mind at the age of 4 (Gopnik Wellman, 1994). Now looking at evidence against the claim, we must firstly take a look at theories and research which suggests that theory of mind does not in fact develop at 4 years. Problems with evidence for the claim are pointed out by researchers and are noted below. Theory of mind module is a theory which essentially goes against the claim that children do not develop a theory of mind until the age of 4. Fodor (1983) originally mentioned innate mental modules thus, in contrast to the theory-theory approach, many theorists have agreed with Fodor and argue that a psychological understanding of the mind is achieved via the computations of an innate mental module (Wellman, 2002). Researchers such as Fodor (1992) and Leslie (1987) have all come to a similar accord that there is an individual theory of mind module which creates depictions of human activity in terms of mental attitudes toward specific events (domain specific cognition). Evidence for the theory of mind module and against the theory theory is when researchers conducted theory of mind research on individuals with autism. They proposed that autistic children have impairment on their theory of mind module leading to inability to construe people in terms of mental states i.e. mind blindness (Leslie, 1987; Baron-Cohen et al 1985). However, as we established earlier, this may be due to the fact that autistic people do not have the same functioning of the mind as normal people and thus may have nothing to do with a module. Theory-theory has also been challenged by many researchers as there is over-reliance on false-belief tests. Lewis Osborne (1990), for example made the point that children can misunderstand the question being posed. Furthermore, Lewis, Freeman, Hagestadt Douglas (1994) stated that children may fail to understand and integrate key elements of the story. Another critique of the theory-theory is that there have been vast amounts of research of a theory of mind before the age of four. Early theorists, argue that children perform better in naturalistic environment for example Dunn (1988) provided a clear analysis of young childrens understanding of other family members desires, intentions and emotions. However one may argue that this is not actually evidence of a theory of mind, rather it is linked with developmental abilities, it does not mean that a theory of mind is acquired at this stage. It has also been found that children have other early (before the age of 4) abilities such as deception (Lewis, Stanger Sullivan, 1989), communicative abilities (Butterworth Jarrett, 1991) and pretence (Leslie, 1987). Numerous researchers have criticised tests such as the false-belief test. De Gelder (1987), for example pointed out that it is known that autistic children have difficulty with pretend play. Therefore, using dolls to represent real people may cause them some difficulties. However Leslie and Frith (1987) repeated the same study using real children and obtained similar findings. Furthermore, despite criticisms, false-belief tests have been replicated and the findings supported by many other researchers (Perner, Leekam Wimmer 1987; Gopnik Astington 1988). Mitchell (1996) agreed with the traditional nativist account of theory of mind. He believed theory of mind had to be present at birth. Mitchells view was that everybody is born with a theory of mind and a reality criterion and young children fail theory of mind tasks as they are guided by the reality criterion. He also emphasised on the reliance of reality with false belief tasks when making judgments. It does not mean young people are incapable of false belief, it simply suggests that the reality criterion is more dominant. Evidence for Mitchells theory takes form in a modified version of the deceptive box test (Mitchell Lacohee, 1991) originally created by Perner, Leekam Wimmer (1987). In the modified version, 63% of children answered correctly compared with 23% in the standard version. Both of the above theories have been deemed as plausible accounts of the theory of mind in children. However there does not seem to be adequate evidence against the claim. As theory of mind has been defined as the ability to understand others beliefs, this has not been seen to occur until the age of 4 (Perner, 1991). Another significant point is that although early abilities may be precursors to a real theory of mind, it does not mean that the change after 4 years does not exist. Gopnik, Slaughter Meltzoff (1994) named four conceptual changes in the development of a theory of mind which provided evidence that a fully developed theory of mind does not appear until the age of 4. A child showing signs of deception, communicative abilities and pretence should even be considered as irrelevant information when studying the theory of mind. Perner (1991) went on to say that pretence, deception etc may be over interpreted. After all, other developmental abilities are each to their own, their presence does not necessarily have to relate to a theory of mind. On balance it would be fair to state that a fully developed mature theory of mind does not appear before the age of 4 and there is not sufficient evidence to backup claims that say otherwise. Although, the majority of evidence relies heavily upon false-belief tasks, the task has been proven to be accurate and reliable. Additionally, Wellman, Cross Watsons meta-analysis (2001) showed that children around 4 years 0 months performed above chance on the false-belief task. They also found that the results were consistent across the period analysed and were not any different for earlier studies than later ones. This provides extremely strong evidence of a theory of mind at the age of 4 compared with nil evidence against the claim. It would therefore be appropriate to accept the claim that a theory of mind appears around the age of 4 years and this is extremely strong evidence in support of this claim. Astington, J. (1996). what is theoretical about the childs theory of mind?:a Vygotskain view of its development. In P. Carruthers, P. K. Smith (Eds.), Theories of Theories of Mind (p. 401). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avis, J., Harris, P. (1991). Belief-Desire Reasoning among Baka Children:Evidence for a Universal Conception of Mind. Child Development , 62, 460-467. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a theory of mind. Cognition , 37-46. Butterworth, G., Jarrett, N. (1991). What minds have in common is space: Spatial mechanisms serving joint visual attention in infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 9 (1), 55-72. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Masachusetts: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1986). The Leading Ideas of the Minimalist Programme. In H. L. Zeljko Boskovic (Ed.), Minimalist Syntax The Essential Readings (pp. 2-4). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. De Gelder, B. (1987). Discussion on not having a theory of mind. Cognition , 285-290. Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Harvard University Press. Fodor, J. (1992). A theory of the childs theory of mind. Cognition , 283-296. Fodor, J. A. (1992). A theory of the childs theory of mind. Cognition , 283-296. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press. Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., Mangun, G. R. (2009). Cognitive Neuroscience:The Biology of the Mind. London: W. W. Norton Company Ltd. Gopnik, A. (2003). The Theory Theory as an Alternative to the Innateness Hypothesis. In L. M. Antony, N. Hornstein (Eds.), Chomsky and his Critics (pp. 238-254). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Gopnik, A., Astington, J. W. (1988). Childrens Understanding of Representational Change and Its Relation to the Understanding of False Belief and the Appearance-Reality Distinction. Child Development , 26-37. Gopnik, A., Wellman, H. (1994). The theory theory. In L. Hirschfield, S. Gelman (Eds.), Domain specificity in culture and cognition (pp. 257-293). New York: Cambridge University Press. Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of theory of mind. Psychological Review , 412-426. Leslie, A. M., Frith, U. (1988). Autistic childrens understanding of seeing, knowing and believing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 315-324. Lewis, C., Osborne, A. (1990). Three Year-Olds Problem with False Belief: Conceptual Deficit or Linguistic Artifact? Child Development , 1514-1519. Lewis, C., Freeman, N. H., Hagestadt, C., Douglas, H. (1994). Narrative access and production in preschoolers false belief reasoning. . Cognitive Development , 397-424. Lewis, M., Stanger, C., Sullivan, M. W. (1989). Deception in 3-year-olds. Developmental Psychology , 439-443. Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). Imitation as a Mechanism of Social Cognition:Origins of Empathy, Theory of Mind, and the Representation of Action. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwells Handook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 6-25). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Mitchell, P. (1996). Acquiring a Conception of Mind. East Sussex: Psychology Press. Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Learning, development, and conceptual change. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 125-137. Piaget, J. (1929). The childs conception of the world. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul Ltd. Piaget, J. (1999). The Psychology of Intelligence (2 ed.). (M. Percy, D. E. Berlyne, Trans.) London: Rputledge and Kegan and Paul Ltd. Premack, D., Woodruff, G. (1978). Chimpanzee problem-solving: a test for comprehension. Science , 532-535. Wellman, H. M. (2002). Understanding the Psychological World: Developing a Theory of Mind. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 167-187). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., Watson, J. (2001). Meta-Analysis of Theory of Mind Development:The Truth about False Belief. Child Development , 72 (3), 655-684. Wimmer, H., Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young childrens understanding of deception. Cognition , 103-128.

The Unrecognizable Role in a Family Essay -- Literary Analysis

It is extraordinary to see how much the world has prospered through the ages. History means the period of time after writing was invented. It is seen through many of history’s works such as Romeo and Juliet, the everlasting story of love, and even through the eighteenth century’s SNL in Gulliver’s Travels. These classics define the meaning of history, but one novel that is easily forgotten with many others is The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. In his novel Steinbeck establishes himself as a true futuristic thinker. Steinbeck borrows straight past the abolition of slavery and harks upon the equality of human rights. Essentially, in a time of a failing economy, it is first expected that there is a minimum sense of hospitality with the basic needs (food, water, and shelter), and are seen through the mercenary minor characters in Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck suggests a radical difference in the Joad family to the rest of the world. This dissimilarity in the main characters of the novel is a benchmark of people should be like in the Dust Bowl era. Before the Joad Family began their journey, the individual roles had merely begun to open up, and much of the importance of the characters was not yet realized. Pa Joad is a good, thoughtful man, and he plans the family’s trip to California with great care and consideration. This serves as one his only leadership roles throughout the novel. The stereotypical Man of the family in this era is found in Pa only in the beginning of the novel. â€Å"Who’s there? Tom intimidated by his bulging powerful muscles† (Steinbeck 71). This leadership role is later transferred to Ma Joad slowly throughout the novel with events such as the journey through the desert. The changing of role... ...n nobody travel back east, and the ragged man that the Joads meet at the campground confirms this fear. Even worse than a crowded labor market is the fact that the presumed opportunities because jobs are a fraud; inducing too many workers in order to drive down wages. The ragged men even suggest that the Joads will face a worse fate in California than they did in Oklahoma. Steinbeck really highlights the imperfect world that tags along with the Dust Bowl. It can definitely said that Steinbeck can be seen as a futuristic thinker as well as a hopeful author. By placing the imperfect world in our minds as the environment in the Grapes of Wrath, he allows a little light to flourish from the Joad family that symbolizes the perfect world. Much like Ma Joad’s leadership over Pa Joad the perfect world has overtaken the inhospitality or imperfect world in today’s society.

Distinction between Microeconomics and Macroeconomics Essay

Microeconomics is the study of individual economic units of an economy whereas macroeconomics is the study of aggregates of an economy as a whole. For example, when we study of an individual sugar mill manufacturing sugar, our study is micro analysis but if we study the entire sugar manufacturing sector of the economy, our study is macro analysis. Also please note if we study the problem of production of a firm, our analysis is micro study but if we study the problems of production of the whole economy, our analysis is macro study. Both Microeconomics and Macroeconomics are inter-dependent and complementary. The main difference between the Microeconomics and Macroeconomics are as follows: Microeconomics Macroeconomics 1. It is the study of individual economic units of an economy It is the study of economy as a whole and its aggregates. 2. It deals with individual income, individual prices and individual output, etc. It deals with aggregates like national income, general price level and national output, etc. 3. Its Central problem is price determination and allocation of resources. Its central problem is determination of level of income and employment. 4. Its main tools are demand and suply of a particular commodity/factor. Its main tools are aggregate demand and aggregate supply of economy as a whole. 5. It helps to solve the central problem of what, how and for whom to produce in the economy It helps to solve the central problem of full employment of resources in the economy. 6. It discusses how equilibrium of a consumer, a producer or an industry is attained. It is concerned with the determination of equilibrium level of incoem and employment of the economy. 7. Price is the main determinant of microeconomic problems. Income is the major determinant of macroeconomic problems. 8. Examples are: individual income, individual savings, price determination of a commodity, individual firm’s output, consumer’s equilibrium. Examples  are: National income, national savings, general price level, aggregate demand, aggregate supply, poverty, unemployment etc.

Meaningful Work

I believe that meaningful work means doing a job that fulfills what you want to achieve. This may be in the form of money or prestige or simply self-satisfaction. It should be the easiest way to get to where you want to be. Most people view their jobs as terrible, hard or boring tasks that need to be done just to survive. I, however, would rather look at work as something to enjoy while making sure I get something I want in return. Hating one’s job seems to be a public consensus. Very few appreciate their work.   Calvin, in the comic series, Calvin and Hobbes, is popular for saying â€Å"It’s only work if somebody makes you do it.† Most people look at their jobs as stressful because of the pressure that goes with it: deadlines, hard-to-please employers and waking up early after sleeping late the night before. If we really think about it, it is not any different from school. At least in a job, you get paid not just a grade. People would rather avoid work because of the pressure. However, stress management is something we all can learn because â€Å"stress is a response to pressure.† (What Is Work) To handle pressure, we must learn how to balance work and life instead of letting it rule our lives. Sir James M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, once said â€Å"nothing is really work unless you would rather do something else† but I believe that to achieve great things, we need to change our view of work. In the book, â€Å"The Lazy Way To Success – How To Do Nothing And Accomplish Everything,† the author, Fred Gratzon, believes that the â€Å"basis of success is not hard work. The basis of success is doing less.† (25) What he meant was that by thinking clearly of how to solve our problems (money, most of the time), we can find solutions that do not necessarily take our happiness away. Gratzon believes that if you put the problem in its correct perspective, you can think of easier ways to get what you want less anxiety and effort. Gratzon is right. Work, I believe is important to achieve what I want or need. It may be money or prestige or happiness. Whatever my goals would be in the future will determine my chosen jobs someday. Realistically, I know I can’t always get the job I want but I believe that I can choose the right attitude and do what I need to do to get what I want. Work is not a pain but a means for me to gain. Work is the way to put meaning in my life. Works Cited â€Å"What Is Work Related Stress?† workstress.net. 2006 http://www.workstress.net/whatis.htm. Gratzon, Fred. The Lazy Way To Success – How To Do Nothing And Accomplish Everything. Iowa: Soma Press, 2002.