Modern Society Mass Media Is Everywhere Media Essay

Modern Society Mass Media Is Everywhere Media Essay Mass media has three major effects on our society. First, it teaches us the signifiers of the culture; secondly, it puts issues into the agenda; thirdly, it offers solutions to binary oppositions and teaches us what behaviors [behaviours] are preferred or at least accepted within the dominant ideology. Thus values and behaviour of youths are strongly influenced by the mass media like newspapers, television, radio, video, and the Internet. Mass media is categorised into three groups, the print media (newspaper, journals, etc.), electronic media (television, radio) and the new-age media (the Internet, mobile phones, and computers). (Uttara, 2000) [5] In this essay, I will focus particularly on free-to-air television programme and the web, how they are not the main causes of moral decay in youths today. First, exposure to violence images through television programme does not cause violence in youths but decrease the probability of being aggressive. However, we often see public pushing blames towards the television programmes. Exposure to aggressive stimuli will increase physiological and emotional arousal, which will increase the probability of violence. (Dr. Mark, n.d.) [3] Thus it is often said that television is a good candidate for the cause of the increase in violence in the society. But, on the other hand, an online document, disagrees that exposure to violence images cause violence in youths and pointed out two theories; Reinforcement theory and Aggressive Cues theory. The Reinforcement theory explains that whether youths turn towards aggressive will depend on the background of the youth. If a youth is brought up in a nasty environment, then the youth is going to read violence images as real violence. The Aggressive Cues theory further point out that whether the youths get ne gatively influenced, all depends on how the media presents these images; if the violence is presented in a justifiable way, then youths can be lead to combative behaviour and vice versa. (Mass Media and Society, n.d.)Â  [7] However, the television programmes shown on television portray violence in an appropriate way. Take Point of Entry as an example; it portrays violence as a negative form for problem solving. William Triplett (2007). [9] agreed that exposure to violence does not cause moral decay in youths, [All babies are born with violent tendencies, which most kids learn to control as they grow older.] Thus exposure to violence scenes is not responsible for the moral decay in youths but depends on the way the youth is being brought up, where parents and guardians come into place. Secondly, with respect to how both television and the net not cause moral decay in youths. Easy accessibility to sexual images does not necessarily cause youths to be sexually arouse. However, through the internet, we often see sources stating society is degenerating because of the ready accessibility in pornography. (Dr. Mark, n.d.) [3] It is said that early exposure to pornography through the web causes youth early maturity, thus an increase in number of sexual activities at an earlier age. Why both the web and television does not cause decay in youths moral is because firstly, the reinforcement theory, a theory that implicates that whether a youth gets negatively or positively influenced depends on the youths background. Children who are sexually abused are going to read sexual signifiers differently than children whose parents demonstrate a loving, caring relationship and explain sexual behaviors [behaviours] to their children. (Dr. Mark, n.d.) [3] Thus the message that had been brought over to youths depends entirely on how the youth interpret it. Besides, having early exposure to sexual images not only prepare the youths with the basic knowledge of sex but also avoid impropriate action done on youths without them knowing that it is wrong. Therefore I conclude that both the web and television does not cause moral decay in youths but actually educates them and prepare them for the future. Thirdly, how television programme and web not cause moral decay in youths, like materialism. Materialism in youths is not caused by the advertisements from both the free-to-air programmes and the net. Through the web, often see people pointing fingers towards the television programmes and the Internet example, Richins Dawson (1992). [6] pointed out that [P]eople view material possessions as a symbol of success and the source of happiness in life. [1] Thus it is said that advertisements motivate consumers to spend unnecessarily; causing youths to be materialistic. However, it is neither the television nor the Internet that causes materialism in youths. It is due to both peer pressure and self-esteem. Many youths feel insecure with their look and status because they feel that they are not fashionable or look good enough as compared to their friends and thus need to depend on accessories to get acknowledged by peers and to feel secure. Deborah Roedder John, and co-author Lan Nguyen Cha plin, (Materialism in Kids and Adolescents linked to Self Esteem, n.d.) [8] have done two experiments with children and found out that the level of materialism is directly proportional to their self-esteem and this proper pride comes from among the peers. In the first experiment, they found that materialism rate increases from the age of 12 onwards but after which declines by the age of 16 to18 years old and this mirrors a patterns in the youths sense of pride. They continued with their second experiment to support materialism is not caused by the television and web. In the second experiment, positive feedbacks were given to the targeted youths from their peers; positive remarks about them, and after which, result shows that the level of materialism decreases simultaneously. Thus it is the peers around who are responsible for the increase in level of materialism and not the television programme or the net. Fourth, with respect to the misunderstanding, that both television and the Internet cause moral decay in youths. Parents and guardians are responsible for the moral decay in youths. A research had been done from the United States: 43 % of teens in the US have used drugs and alcohol at least once. Around 1 million teens have left their homes and half of them live as delinquent (naughty) boys and girls and the other half are drug users. About 2,000 teens from the age of 10 to 19 years old commit to suicide each year. Most of them come from wealthy families that are not harmonious. (Maxi, 2007) [4] From this result, it shows that family without parents or guardians love, care and concern will cause them to become ignorant. Without parents or guardians watch over, teens will be able to access any type of media content, and cause youths to get negatively influenced by the restricted sites or aggressive programmes. Thus parents should be responsible as they have the right and should watch over the programmes selected by the youths; prevent them from watching inappropriate videos and visiting restricted sites. Besides watching over the programmes selected, parents should also communicate more with their child and understands their need and enlighten them to avoid misinterpretation over the content from the programmes viewed. Thus, I conclude that parents and guardians are responsible for the cause moral decay in youths. With the appropriate guidance from young, youths will not misapprehend the message brought over to them from the images watched. Lastly why television and the Internet not cause moral decay is because both online resource and the television programmes provide youths with educational knowledge. In the past, most teachers conduct their lessons using either verbal communication or at most with additional notes. Although teachers are still using this method to teach in the class today, students are learning facts and values from the mass media especially through the net and television programs. (Bukhari, 2006, p.111) [1] In school, the time slot given to moral education is limited, foremost two hours each week, thus youths cannot learn much morals in school. In fact, with more time given for moral lessons do no help improve the morals in youths. According to Cheung (n.d.). [2] [[T]eachers find it difficult to teach values and attitudes while pupils find moral lessons boring.] and state that [TV [Television] has become childs third parent and a first teacher] [Exposed to media messages, pupils may be imperceptibly but strongly influenced by the values behind such media message.] (p.62) Between moral education in class and through virtual images, the web resources enhance youths interest in learning more. [This technological escalation has bestowed upon education proliferation of equipment and materials which can assist in the reorganization and redefinition of educational experiences.] (Bukhari, 2006, p.111) [1] Therefore I conclude that both the television programme and the Internet does not cause moral decay in youths but on the other hand teach them morals. In conclusion, both the Internet and free-to-air programmes plays an important role in shaping youths culture but not the main cause of moral decay in youths. The mass media is an amoral system; the existence of inappropriate media content is because of the supporting subscribers that sustains its survival. The medias responsibility is to bring happiness and satisfaction to the receivers. With the precise preference, youths will not get negatively affected by both the net and television. Moreover, if youths got in contact with these inappropriate shows, parents should explain the correct message behind the scene to avoid misapprehend of content. Both the Internet and television programmes provide educational visuals. Therefore I conclude that both the Internet and television are not the main cause of moral decay in youths.

Aristotle and Aurelius Essay

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics goes to show that he believes that the end goal of all human actions is eudaimonia, or happiness through success and fulfillment. Following this concept Aristotle goes on to explain that through virtuosity a human being can lead a happy life. He defines virtue as a disposition to make the correct decisions that lead to the chief good of happiness. A perfect example is when he describes someone who does an action well as being good, but they are only considered good because of their distinctive activity. The distinctive activity for human beings can be considered our rationale. This is where virtue comes into play in the matter, but this translation could also be deciphered as excellence. Human beings do every single thing they do for a reason and that reason is to help towards an end goal. Although it may seem like the end goal might be something good like eating lunch, it is actually a chain to the ultimate good which is being happy. Happiness in Aristotle’s view is not second-by-second or even minute-by-minute but an entire lifetime. This is because we view happiness as and end goal which we hope to achieve by death and that way you can look back on a person’s life to see if they succeeded in their goal, through virtuous moral character and virtuous intellectual character and through the act of temperance. A life-time of that act can guarantee a happy, fulfilling, and successful life. Being virtuous come through two different ways in our actions as said by Aristotle, â€Å"Excellence being of two sorts, then, the one intellectual and the other of character, the intellectual sort mostly both comes into existence and increases as a result of teaching whereas excellence of character results from habituation†¦ † (Nicomachean Ethics, 1103a15). Intellectual virtue comes from teaching, experience, and time while character virtue is formed through the habit of repeated virtuous actions and constant practice. This allows for every human being to potentially have a virtuous moral character for the fact that it cannot be learned but only practiced, and not one person can be born already virtuous. The only problem with this concept is that there is no exact guideline in which to follow in order to become virtuous and, ultimately, happy. Basically Aristotle explains that you can find virtue in the middle ground of your actions, for example, he says â€Å"For to arrive at one of the two extremes is more erroneous, to arrive at the other less; so, since it is hard to hit upon intermediate with extreme accuracy, one should take to the oars and sail that way, as they say, grasping what is least bad of what is available†¦ † (Nicomachean Ethics, 1109a35) There is no teaching as to why, for example, courage is preferred over cowardice or rashness but that you need to practice being courageous in order to understand the reasoning for being courageous. This is true for all virtuous traits and merits of the human character and by combining the moral and intellectual teachings and habits can you start on the path of a virtuous disposition. The key to virtue is keeping within a balance between the vices. For an excessive vice there is excessive pleasure but also excessive pain and for the opposite there is no pleasure and no pain. The key is in a state of temperance in order to feel the correct amount of pleasure for a healthy lifestyle and choices. Aristotle’s views show that someone with a virtuous disposition should automatically or naturally choose the best action or behavior in any circumstances without having to rely on reason because the virtuous habit has been already learned. In response to someone arguing against an accidental choice, these views only perceive the deliberate and voluntary choices made by the person of virtue. Also a virtuous moral character will always aim for the good while unjust character will try to aim for what is their perception or the â€Å"apparent† good as said in â€Å"That wish is for the end, we have already said; but to some it seems to be for the good, whereas to others it seems to be for the apparent good. The consequence, for those who say that the object of wish is the good, is that what the person making an incorrect choice wishes for is not wished for.. † (Nicomachean Ethics, 1113a10). A virtuous person will always do the right thing and will never be surprised by their actions, nor will they do it the right thing with an ulterior motive. Though you cannot live a happy life just with a virtuous disposition because you still need to act within accordance to virtue, you absolutely cannot live a happy life without virtue. Having virtue in your actions will lead to the final goal of happiness because it far outweighs the happiness found in pleasure, awards or merits. II. Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher-king and emperor of the Roman Empire and was considered of of the most influential Stoic philosophers of all time. His greatest work Meditations is an honest portrayal of Aurelius’ thoughts as they were found in journal form, never meant to be publicized. He wrote these books for himself as a sort of guideline and thought-provoking inner voice. In his works of Meditations, Marcus Aurelius doesn’t use arguments as a way to get his point across but rather states his words as truths and seems to be very confident in his uses. It seems he is prying at the meaning of life, the why’s and how’s of it all on the idea of living. He is very blunt in his use of understating the human existence in the world and compares them to specks in the grand scheme, but the point of this is to provide a sort of carpe diem lifestyle. By letting yourself let go of the things you cannot control, you begin to gain a better understanding of the things you can control and act accordingly. â€Å"We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are obstructions. † (Meditations, 17). This quote goes to show how you cannot allow yourself to get angry at another person for what they have done, but to continue your existence and recognize what you need to do. He advises in his writings â€Å"To shrug it all off and wipe it clean-every annoyance and distraction-and reach utter stillness. † (Meditations, 54) and once you can do that you can realize what is natural. Stoicism being a very popular philosophy in ancient Rome for it called for a â€Å"cosmic determinism† in relation to â€Å"human freedom† by a parallel will to that of Nature . Aurelius,himself, was a firm believer in the Logos, which can be identified as a principle a guiding force for the universe, human beings and all matter. In fact, it is one of the most important concepts in Stoicism for the ancient Romans of the time. The stark and â€Å"manly† belief that every single citizen had a duty, whether they were a king or a peasant, were expected to follow it to the best of their abilities. The term utter stillness is used to acknowledge the state of no distractions. By achieving this you can focus solely on appropriate actions and how to follow your own road by the way of Nature on an unconscious level. Not by thinking about it but by acting naturally should you continue to help others, work for yourself, never stopping but continuing to reply to Nature’s demands. To do this all under the Logos, in order to find our common sense and avoid the annoying distractions all the while by controlling these actions through your inner unconscious/conscious self. III. The Greek philosopher Aristotle and the Roman philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius can be compared and contrasted in their similar and different ways of thoughts. First you can compare Aristotle’s ideas on eudaimonia and Aurelius’ use of utter stillness to help follow the logos, also the final step of death as the end of one’s journey towards a life of fulfillment. Contrastingly, they have different outlooks on purpose of human life and how to lead to the fulfilling of that said life. Stoicism was developed within the framework of Greek theory and philosophies from Plato and Aristotle so obviously there are bound to be many similarities. Both of these men were truly brilliant and ground-breaking in their respective ways of thought and led centuries of intellectuals to search for more fulfillment and happiness’s in their lives. Some big differences between Aristotle and Aurelius were there views on mortality or death. While Aristotle concludes that our lives are given to us and as valuable as human beings want to make them, the Stoics view on life is that is shaped by death and that the thoughts, choices and actions are just based on the knowledge of death. Eudaimonia is a subject in which Aristotle and Aurelius were familiar with in their writings about philosophical life. Aristotle thought of eudaimonia as an activity done with virtue performed rationally and consciously. Aurelius and the other Stoics insist that the way for eudaimonia is to live a morally virtuous life, in regards to the fact that virtue is good, vices are bad and most everything else is neutral. A popular argument for this where a death in the family would be involved, according to Aristotle, that would rob the most virtuous person of their eudaimonia while the Stoics would consider that neutral. Another interesting fact about Aristotle is how he acknowledges how â€Å"dumb luck† can aid or block the journey for eudaimonia, for example being born beautiful or losing close friends and family. Basically, they agree that eudaimonia is self-sufficient; the chief goal in life and that eudaimonia is the most complete end result. Virtue is very important to both philosophers and their ways of thinking and considers it absolutely crucial for eudaimonia. Aristotle and Aurelius can agree that no one is born just virtuous as it must be an act learned. Virtue is believed to be how one can control their emotions for it helps them to stay stable and in moderation. Overall, living life virtuously is living a life full of dignity. Marcus Aurelius’s view is a much more justified view because it is more modern and more adaptable. As the stoicism wants people to better themselves within reasonable goals and change values into something that will bring upon an unconscious change so that they may make better decisions consciously. Aristotle instead relies too much on a proper upbringing and calls the loss of good and friends as a prevention of eudaimonia. Stoics learn to realize what is out of their control and move on to what they can control. Aristotelian views also say that if a person dies early that it is a tragedy and that they were taken away before they reached their prime which in the Stoics eyes, a virtuous person should never be afraid of death because their life is sufficient when living a virtuous life. The difference continues when viewing the topic of emotions for Aristotelian that emotions are not good nor bad, only bad when expressed inappropriately while the Stoics think the whole point of eudaimonia is to be free from emotion. Finally the stoics don’t see a difference between the rich, poor, slaves or free men, because in their views bodily and external things can no impact on their dignity, whereas Aristotle believes that a life based on virtues along with enough material and external goods like freedom, wellbeing, and close friends lead to a life of dignity. Overall, Aurelius and the Stoics have built upon and modified Aristotle’s view to be more realistic and to try and be more optimistic in leading the best possible life no matter the circumstances.

Standard Deviation and Frequency Distributions

TUI Frequency Distributions Module 3/Case 10/148/2012 Professor Kuleshov Frequency Distributions This assignment is based on Frequency Distributions and will include the following information: 1. The ability to describe the information provided by the Standard Deviation. 2. The ability to use the Standard Deviation to calculate the percentage of occurrence of a variable either above or below a particular value. 3. The ability to describe a normal distribution as evidenced by a bell shaped curve as well as the ability to prepare a distribution chart from a set of data (module 3 Case).Part 1 (1) To get the best deal on a CD player, Tom called eight appliance stores and asked the cost of a specific model. The prices he was quoted are listed below: $ 298 $ 125 $ 511 $ 157 $ 231 $ 230 $ 304 $ 372 Find the Standard deviation $ 298 + $ 125+ $ 511+ $ 157+ $ 231+ $ 230+ $ 304+ $ 372= 2228/8 = 278. 5(subtract from #s) 19,-153, 232, -121, -47, -48, 25, 93 (square numbers) 380, 2356, 54056, 1476 2, 2256, 2352, 650, 8742 = 106(added) (Divide by 7) 15251 (take square root) Standard Deviation = approximately 123. 2) When investigating times required for drive-through service, the following results (in seconds) were obtained. Find the range, variance, and standard deviation for each of the two samples, and then compare the two sets of results. Wendy's 120 123 153 128 124 118 154 110 MacDonald's 115 126 147 156 118 110 145 137 (2) Set 1: Range : maximum – minimum = 154-110= 44 Number of cases 8 To find the mean, add all of the observations and divide by 8 Mean 125 Squared deviations (120-125)^2 = (-5)^2 = 25 (123-125)^2 = (-2)^2 = 4 (153-125)^2 = (28)^2 = 784 (128-125)^2 = (3)^2 = 9 (124-125)^2= (-1)^2= 1 (118-125)^2 = (-7)^2 = 49 154-125)^2 = (29)^2 = 841 (110-125)^2 = (-15)^2 = 225 Add the squared deviations and divide by 8 Variance = 1938/7 Variance = 276 Standard deviation = sort(variance) = 16 Set 2: Range : 156-110 =46 Number of cases 8 To find the mean, add all of the observations and divide by 8 Mean 131 Squared deviations (115-131)^2 = (-16)^2 = 280 (126-131)^2 = (-5. 75)^2 = 33 (147-131)^2 = (15)^2 = 232 (156-131)^2 = (24)^2 = 588 (118-131)^2 = (-13)^2 = 189 (110-131)^2 = (-21) ^2 = 473 (145-131) ^2 = (13) ^2 = 175 (137-131) ^2 = (5) ^2 = 27 This is divide by 7 because this is a sample data n-1=7 Add the squared deviations and divide by 7Variance = 1999/7 Variance = 285 Standard deviation = sort (variance) = 16 The standard deviation for restaurant B is slightly smaller than that of restaurant A. The range for restaurant A is slightly less the range of B. This shows there is a little more variation in restaurant A with respect to times required for drive through service than in required for drive through service than in B. (3) A company had 80 employees whose salaries are summarized in the frequency distribution below. Find the standard deviation. Find the standard deviation of the data summarized in the given frequency distribution. Salar y Number of Employees ,001 -10,000 14 10,001 – 15,000 13 15,001 – 20,000 18 20,001 – 25,000 18 25,001 – 30,000 17 The chart gives frequency and salary, traditional formulas cannot be used due to we do not know the actually salary of each employee. In order to do these assumptions need to be done with using middle point. Example (10000-5001) /2 then added to 5001= 7500 5,001- 10,000 =7500 10,001-15000=12500 15001-20000=17500 2001-2500=22500 25001-30,000=27500 Total number of employees = 80 14, 13, 18, 18, 17= 80 Compute the Mean 14 * 7500 = 105000 13* 12500 = 162500 18* 17500 = 315000 18* 22500= 405000 17 * 27500 = 467500 467500 80Add up all frequency Mark values Total= 1455000 1455000 80 1455000 / 80 = 18187. 5 = 18188 Now standard deviation Total employees 80 Total 1455000 Means= 18188 7500-18188=-10688 12500-18188=-5688 17500-18188=-688 22500-18188=4312 27500-18188=9312 Square the values -10688= 114233344 -5688=32353344 -688=473344 4312=18593344 9312=86 713344 114233344*13=420593472 323553344*13=420593472 Sd2= 3837187520 80-1 = 48571993 (round up) = 48571994 4. The heights of a group of professional basketball players are summarized in the frequency distribution below. Find the standard deviation. Height (in. ) Frequency 70-71 3 72-73 7 74-75 16 76-77 12 78-79 10 0-81 4 82-83 1 To get the standard deviation of these numbers I first calculated the mean by added all the numbers together (3, 7, 16, 12, 10, 4, 1) and divided it by 7. I then took the mean (7. 57143) and calculated the deviance by subtracting the mean from each one of the numbers in the set. Then I squared each of the individual deviations, added those sums together, and divided the number I got from that sum by one less than the data set, which are 6. Then the last step is calculating the square root, which is the ending result (5. 38074) References Introduction to Frequency Distributions, Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://infinity. os. edu/faculty/woodbury/Stats/Tuto rial/Data_Freq. htm Slides on frequency distributions, Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://campus. houghton. edu/orgs/psychology/stat3/ Frequency distributions, Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://davidmlane. com/hyperstat/normal_distribution. html Z-Table Calculator, Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://davidmlane. com/hyperstat/z_table. html Z-Table and Standard Normal Distribution, Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://www. oswego. edu/~srp/stats/z. htm Example of the normal distribution, Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://www. ms. uky. edu/~mai/java/stat/GaltonMachine. html

The Little Shop of Horror and Macbeth - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 553 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/02/20 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: Macbeth Essay Did you like this example? Do you know the differences and similarities in the book about Macbeth and the movie about The Little Shop Of Horrors? There are many differences and similarities in this essay about Macbeth and The Little Shop Of Horrors. Both of the stories provide great information because the details are given, shows and tells how all of the killing scenes went, and it gives you the suspension, to make you wanna know what is going to happen next. Here are the first differences between The Little Shop of Horrors and Macbeth. The first difference would be how Macbeth killed the king of Scotland, and Seymour killed the railroad man just to feed his plant. Macbeth murdered King Duncan because some witches told him that one day he will become king. So he took it in his own hands to kill Duncan. Seymour killed the railroad man because his plant convinced him that he wanted blood and flesh. Both of them killed someone but it was for different reasons. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Little Shop of Horror and Macbeth" essay for you Create order The second difference is Macbeth had people kneeling before him not knowing what happened to King Duncan. Seymour did not know Mr. Mushnick seen him feed the body parts to the plant. Macbeth had people kneeling before him but the people did not know what happened to King Duncan because he killed him in his sleep while the lady Macbeth drugged the bodyguards. Seymour did not know that Mr. Mushnick saw him. The only reason how Mr. Mushnick saw him was that he forgot his wallet. Macbeth and Seymour have hidden agendas. They do not think no one is going to catch them. The third difference is Macbeth was told by witches that Macduff is a threat to his throne. Seymour was about to get a trophy until the faces popped up on the plant of how many people were fed to the plant and who they were. Macbeth knew that Macduff knew what really happened to King Duncan. So Macbeth took it upon himself and hires a murderer to kill Macduff’s family. He thought that killing Macduffs family would cause Macduff to back down. Seymour felt guilty of what he did when Frankie and Joe caught on to who killed the railroad man and the dentist. So, Seymour ran and ran until he came upon a junkyard with lots and lots of toilets. They could not find him because he hid inside the toilets. They both have come to realization that what they did was wrong. In conclusion, Macbeth and Seymour both killed others, had hidden agendas, and thought no one was going to catch them. They both knew that killing was wrong but they continued to do it because they felt that it was pleasing. It felt pleasing because no one knew what was happening at the time. The moral of this essay is that if you know that what your doing is wrong, do not continue doing it because it will come back to bite you in the butt. Works Cited Griffith, Charles B. The Little Shop of Horrors. Directed by Roger Corman, Santa Clara Productions, 1960, YouTube, uploaded by NAveryW, March 15, 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhSP0ldQnuk. Accessed August 25, 2018. Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. Folger Shakespeare Library, www.folgerdigitaltexts.org/html/Mac.html. Accessed September 25, 2018.