Short answer questions - Essay Example

Psychology Describe some of the criticisms that have been offered by the evolutionary theory of attraction. A generalcritique of the evolutionary theory of attraction is the frequent omission of clear definitions. The word evolution has varying definitions ranging from narrow to broad.  For example, in some literature, the term evolution is used to imply genetic evolution solely while others use it to refer to cultural changes via memes and learning. Evolutionary psychology subscribes to the belief that elements of human nature universally comprises of species that have evolved psychological mechanisms.

 In essence, evolutionary psychology presupposes that universal forms of behavior co-exist with their underlying genetic counterparts –drawing from the stance that such human behaviors have provided some competitive advantage and are therefore, selected (Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert 96-110).2. Are school shootings such as the Columbine Massacre simply the result of deranged individuals acting independently? What does social psychology suggest about why school shootings occur and about how the problem might be addressed?

The Columbine High School Massacre has largely passed criticisms for murder in various quotas of discourse. The intention of the 18year old Harris and Klebold was to “leave behind a memorable mark in the world.” Various perceptions abound about the intentions of the killers but as it may be speculated, the killers never saw themselves as school shooters but their obsession possibly lied about the use of bombs. As described by Gullen, Harris suffered high-level superiority complex, revulsion for authority, and he enjoyed this disposition.

This stance presents the killer as a psychopath yet no reasonable means work to change such a stature (Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert 242-256).The killers engaged in petty crimes such as hacking into the school computer systems and breaking other students’ lockers. They were suspended and isolated from each other to avert crime collusion. From the recount of the actions of the duo killers, it is apparent that they suffered psychological problems that could be noticeable through primary psychotherapy following their deviant acts of petty crimes.

It is, therefore, underpinning that school administrations ought to subject deviant students to the psychological examination before punitive measures are taken against their acts. The explosion of the punitive measure can be disastrous as the retaliating parties affect other proximate lives.3. In 1970, the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded that in and of themselves, sexually explicit materials do not contribute to violence against women, sexual crimes, or other antisocial acts.

Fifteen years later, Attorney General Edwin Meese convened a commission to revisit the question. The Meese Commission findings directly contradicted the 1970 Commission findings. Who was right?Violence against women and other forms of antisocial acts are socially constructed from a historical perspective of female inferiority. While it is arguable that the predisposition for sexual crimes is motivated by the exposure of perpetrators of the violence to sexually explicit materials, the perpetrators’ actions are also motivated by the superiority complex stance that is cultivated from the human misconceptions.

It is, therefore, important to strike the ground on the collateral contributions of the two aspects of causation of antisocial activities.The exposure of victims of violence to sexually explicit materials predisposes the perpetrators to some form of approval of their actions. This compounded by the societal discrimination of women act as justifications for their heinous antisocial activities. In essence, Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography stance of antisocial acts was mistaken.

On the one hand, The Meese Commission findings subscribed to the ideals of social inclinations of antisocial activities. The results were, therefore, more acceptable (Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert 318-327).4. According to the authors, how does a belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) contribute to blaming the victims of injustice?According to a just world hypothesis, people exhibit a strong desire to embrace the world as an orderly, predictable, and just place, where people get just whatever they deserve.

Such a belief is integral in human lives.It facilitates planning of human lives or achievement of goals since it fosters the belief that we need to assume that our actions will have predictable consequences. Probably the notion of just world is the human attempts to humans feel more comfortable with the universe and its conditions. The assumption of life as just does well to incline humans to their environments but pervades the access to the ideals of justice (Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert 412).

Work cited Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. Social psychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.2010. Print.