Definitions and Examples of Theory

Carlous Linnaeus, who often went by the more conventional “Carl,” is often called the “Father of Taxonomy.” He created a system for ranking, classifying, and naming organisms. Many of his ideas about classification are still used today, creating an influence on biologists that has shaped the scientific world since the 18th century.

Linnaeus loved nature and held strong to a faith of natural theology. He felt that a person could understand the wisdom of God better by studying what he felt God had created. By searching for order, Linnaeus felt that order would be discovered.

The Sexual Basis of the Carlous Linnaeus Theory

The plant taxonomy theory that Linnaeus developed was based solely on the arrangement and number of reproductive organs that were present. In the Linnaeus theory, the classification of a plant would be determined by the stamens and the order of pistels. For this reason, many of his groups seemed to not make sense compared with other scientific observations from the day.

Linnaeus would classify plants without obvious sex organs in their own class. Those with multiple male organs joined to one common base would be combined with plants that had separate male and female organs on the same plant.

Linnaeus would admit that his classifications were more artificial than natural. His goal was to account for the differences and similarities that could be seen in plants.

Then Linnaeus would go on to connect the sexuality of a plant to the sexuality that occurs in human love. How a plant reproduces would be compared to a “bridal bed.”

The Naming System Introduced by Carlous Linnaeus

Linnaeus recognized that a workable naming system would be required to classify plants, and eventually animals, so that each species could be separately identified. After working through several options, he settled on designating names with one Latin name to indicate the genus, then a shorthand name to determine the name for the species.

This would create a system of binomial naming, which would become the foundation of his theories on creation. The oldest plant names that are accepted as a valid name today were published by Linnaeus in 1753 in his work called “Species Plantarum.” The oldest animal names were published by Linnaeus in 1758 in his work called “Systema Naturae.”

Although some scientists and researchers used Latin names for plants and animals before Linneaus, they are not usually considered to be a valid name. It is the consistent use of the naming system that has stuck from the Carlous Linnaeus theory and why his names have been given a priority.

Why Linnaeus Began to Name Plants and Animals

In his early works, Linnaeus believed that life was “fixed” on the planet. This meant a rose was always a rose, a wolf was always a wolf, and nothing would change that. It is the reason behind his desire to create a pattern of consistent naming. By classifying each animal species, Linnaeus could “theologically prove” that God was behind the complexity of creation.

As Linnaeus observed the natural world, however, he would have his theological beliefs challenged. Rather than having each species be fixed, he realized that hybridization could occur within the natural world. Different species of plant could hybridize and create forms which looked like a brand-new species of plant.

After observing several instances of hybridization, Linnaeus would abandon the idea that species were invariable. He would then shift to suggest that a genus could arise after creation, with plants and eventually animals being able to alter themselves through a process of acclimitazation.

Near the end of his life, he even began to suggest that the hybridization of genera could occur to give rise to new genera. This would essentially be the foundation of the first theories of evolution, which would eventually be brought to popularity by theorists like Charles Darwin.

One could even say that his description of nature being a “war of all against all” is an early version of the “survival of the fittest” idea. The idea of open-ended evolution, however, is clearly not part of the Carlous Linnaeus theory.

Thanks to his search for a natural system, the scientific world is still classifying life based on the naming systems and consistency that Linnaeus created. Whether he discovered a Divine Order to the planet through this process is left to him, but what we do have is a systematic method of discovering and using information to identify relationships in the natural world.

Carol Gilligan created a moral development theory that was used as an approach to reasoning. When researching morality and human development, Gilligan discovered that women tended to score lower on the scales of morality compared to men. Not agreeing with the idea that women were morally inferior to men, she began a process of interviewing women while they had to make difficult decisions in their lives.

This led her to assert that women were different, not inferior, to men and that previous development theories were based on definitions that would apply only to men with accuracy. Women, Gilligan asserted, would focus on connections with people instead of separation, driven by an ethic of care for people instead of an ethic for justice.

This process led her to develop a moral development theory that would be more closely associated with women instead of men.

The Three Stages of Gilligan’s Moral Development Theory

Gilligan produced a theory that had three stages that would lead to the ethic of care that would form the foundation of moral development.

1. The Pre-conventional Stage: In this stage, the goal of a woman is to survive. She is focused on individuality and making sure that her basic needs have been met. The ability to meet personal needs takes a priority over the ability to meet the person needs of others. If it is either her or them, she will choose herself every time in this stage of moral development.

2. The Conventional Stage: In this stage, a woman recognizes that self-sacrifice can be a source of “goodness” in her life. She recognizes the need to help other people and finds moral satisfaction in being able to meet those needs. Instead of focusing on her own self-survival, she is focused on helping others to survive in the best way possible.

3. The Post-conventional Stage: In this stage, a woman recognizes that the “ends no longer justify the means” to have needs met. Whether she is focused on her survival or the survival of others, there is a principle of non-violence that applies to every decision that she makes. She does not wish to hurt herself or hurt others, looking for alternative methods to have needs met so that everyone can progress forward with their care.

Gilligan suggests that there are two transitions that occur during the stages of the ethic of care as well. The first transition, which occurs between the pre-conventional and conventional stages, moves a woman’s moral ethics from one that is selfish to one that shares a responsibility to care for others.

The second transition, which occurs between the conventional and post-conventional stages, is a transition that moves a woman from being focused on “good” to being focused on “truth.” Instead of looking for ways to survive for herself and for others, she begins to look for options that are fueled by a need to stay true to certain moral constants.

Gilligan proposes that there is no approximate age for a woman to reach each stage. She even suggests that some women may never reach the post-conventional stage. What she does suggest is that movement through the stages is based more on cognitive capability and changes to a woman’s sense of self rather than built-up experiences.

Women View Relationships Differently Than Men

Gilligan suggests that there are differences in the relationships that women form compared to the relationships men form. Because of this, she suggests that women should be excluded from earlier forms of moral development theories that were developed by men.

Because women view relationships differently, the moral decisions and stages of the ethic of care are different. Major decisions can have an influence on how a woman sees morality. For Gilligan, her approach to the new moral development theory is based on the decision in her study as to whether a woman should have an abortion.

Gilligan suggests that she supports the right of a woman to choose, which then creates moral conflicts for those who might choose otherwise.

Criticism of the moral development theory suggests that Gilligan is basing the differences in morality on societal expectations instead of gender influences. Because society expects a woman to think differently than a man, then differences are present based on that expectation rather than any natural difference that is formed from a difference in gender.

That would mean the ethics of care are based not on physiological differences, but societal expectations of physiological differences.

Gilligan’s moral development theory presents the idea that men and women are fundamentally incompatible. That is the central idea to what she presents.

Urie Bronfenbrenner developed the ecological systems theory to describe child development. His approach suggests that everything within a child and everything in that child’s environment affects development and growth.

The Bronfenbrenner child development theory suggests that there are four systems which influence the child as they grow and develop.

1. Microsystems

Bronfenbrenner suggests that the immediate environment of the child, which is the small area where they live, is a microsystem. People within this system would include the family of the child, any caregivers that are in their life, people at school, and people at a daycare facility. Anyone who can make decisions regarding the direct welfare of the child through a relationship would potentially be included.

If these individuals create environments that are nurturing and encouraging for the child, then the growth and development of the child will be encouraged.

If the environment is directed toward isolation, loneliness, and self-sufficiency, then the growth and development of the child will be discouraged.

Specific genetic traits can also influence the type and level of growth of the child, no matter what the microsystem may be.

2. Mesosystems

Bronfenbrenner suggests that how the different parts of a child’s microsystem can work together will directly affect the development of a child.

If a child’s parents or guardians take an active role in the school where the child attends, then this reinforces the growth potential that is possible. Events, such as attending a child’s baseball game, would also show a positive interaction between microsystem elements.

If the microsystem elements disagree with the process that should be followed to encourage growth in a child, then it can prevent that growth from occurring. The greatest potential for growth reduction would occur when two direct caretakers that are important to a child, such as their mother and father, would disagree and provide different lessons to the child that conflict with each other.

3. Exosystems

Bronfenbrenner suggests that there are relationships outside of the close, intimate relationships of the microsystem that can influence the development of a child. Other people, places, and events may directly influence the development process, even if the child does not interact with those elements.

The example Bronfenbrenner uses involves the employment of a parent. When a parent is working, the child is not part of that direct relationship. The child benefits, however, because the parent brings home a paycheck and that money meets their basic needs.

If the parent receives a promotion, then they may earn more money. That extra money can be used to meet more needs for the child, such as better clothes, better food quality, or even better schooling. A positive change in the exosystem creates positive change within the microsystem.

The opposite is also true. If the parent is fired from a job and not eligible for unemployment, then the lack of income can have a negative impact on the child. They may not be able to eat better food, have better clothes, or go to a private school any longer.

There are various other exosystem relationships that may apply, including extended family relationships, neighborhood interactions, and similar relationships.

4. Macrosystems

Bronfenbrenner also suggests that outside influences that do not involve a relationship with the child can have a direct impact on their upbringing and development. The macrosystem is the largest environment that interacts with the child, is the most remote environment as well, but still has a large influence on the child.

A macrosystem could be a political decision that is made, such as restricting the ability for the child’s family to obtain low-cost healthcare. A positive impact could also be made, such as allowing tax credits for school costs, which would allow for more microsystem needs to be met.

Additional macrosystems could be religious values that are enforced, cultural values that are emphasized, the growth or recession of an economy, or even warfare in a different country. Anything that would affect the child in any way, but does not fit into the three previous environment categories, would become a macrosystem influence.

What Does This Mean for Modern Child Development?

Bronfenbrenner’s child development theory shows that multiple influences can make a direct impact on how a child develops. Even if a parent does everything right and positively influences the microsystem, negative influences in a child’s exosystems and macrosystems could offset what the parent attempts to accomplish.

For this reason, Bronfenbrenner indirectly suggests that a village really does raise a child, though many may not realize the true impact of their decisions.

Imagine that you’re standing by yourself in a darkened neighborhood. There are two houses before you.

The first house is pristine. The siding is in excellent condition, the paint on the house looks good, and all the windows are intact.

The second house is rundown. The siding looks old and has a bit of mold growing on it. There are a couple shingles missing from the roof. One of the downstairs windows is broken.

If you had to choose one of these houses to spend the night, which one would it be?

Virtually everyone would choose the first house over the second. This is because an intact house offers a feeling of safety.

The broken window theory suggest that criminal behaviors are inspired by the presence of unmaintained structures. Small, petty crimes such as vandalism, public intoxication, jaywalking, and other similar actions are prevented when an atmosphere of order is maintained within the public view.

How Fear is a Foundation of the Broken Window Theory

Fear is what motivates people to take action. The fear of immigration causes people to vote for a candidate that promises to restrict immigrants. A fear of dying inspires people to seek out religion or an answer about death.

In criminology, fear is what creates public disorder.

People who are uncomfortable with others will avoid them. This discomfort is a result of fear. People will also avoid a home that appears to be unsafe, especially if there is another home that appears to be safer.

Even a brand-new home, if it has a broken window, is perceived to be less safe than an aging, dirty home that has an intact structure. This is because fear is a result of a personal perception of disorder.

That means bringing order to a neighborhood offers the opportunity to reduce petty crime. It is possible because the average person wishes to follow the social norms and signals that are present within any localized society.

What Factors Contribute to the State of a Specific Environment?

According to the broken window theory of criminology, there are 3 specific factors that may affect a person’s decision to pursue crime within a specific neighborhood.

1. Conformity through social norms. If you’re in a new neighborhood and there aren’t any people around, then it is impossible to know what the social norms or the monitoring in that neighborhood happen to be. Visual cues will be sought. If there are broken windows, an individual will feel like there is less risk of being caught should they decide to commit a crime.

2. Routine monitoring. Monitoring doesn’t have to be a law enforcement entity. Posting a “community watch’ sign in a neighborhood is a way to indicate to strangers that routine monitoring does take place. When this is communicated, it reduces the chances that a crime will take place.

3. Social signaling. If one home has a broken window, but there is routine monitoring and conformity expected, then this is seen as an oversight. If many homes have broken windows, then the social signaling that is offered from the neighborhood will have a greater influence than the other two factors.

There can be a disconnect between anonymous strangers in a neighborhood and those that call a neighborhood their home. To a resident, a broken window may not seem like a problem at all. Constant exposure to structural deterioration causes a modification of how a person behaves.

A stranger might look at an entire street of homes with broken windows and decide they want to be anywhere else but there. A resident might decide to avoid that street altogether so they aren’t confronted with the reality of an entire block of homes that is falling apart.

When social controls are avoided, other “unsavory” elements begin to creep into a neighborhood. Drunks may come out in public on a frequent basis. Prostitution may begin openly on street corners. Illicit drugs may be sold, which can evolve into addicts sitting on street corners.

This causes local residents to spend less time outside so they can avoid these elements of their neighborhood. It also means fewer people who have no desire to participate in a crime will come through the neighborhood. Over time, the lack of controls will only attract those who wish to break the law in some way.

The broken window theory of criminology isn’t just a downward spiral. By restoring social controls and fixing structures, a reduction of criminal activity can be achieved. If the improvements are maintained, it becomes possible to create a positive impression and this creates an upward spiral of success.

Since the 1960s, there have been several variations of the string theory which have been developed. The bosonic string theory is the original version of this idea as it only contained bosons within the spectrum.

In string theory, the original idea was that the pointed particles in particle physics could be replaced by 1D objects. These objects, called strings, were propagated throughout space and could interact with each other. From a distance, strings would look like any other pointed particle, but up close, their mass and charge would help to influence its vibrational state.

The bosonic string theory was abandoned for other quantum theories, but is still currently used in theoretical science with the idea of quantum gravity.

What Is a Boson and Why Does It Matter?

Bosons are particles that follow Bose-Einstein statistics. In the field of quantum mechanics, they are one of two classes of particles, with the other being a fermion. Bosons include several different types of fundamental particles, including gluons and photons.

The Higgs boson is another elementary particle that would be included within this grouping.

What is important about bosons is that their statistics don’t restrict the number that can occupy the same quantum state. This is what differentiates them from fermions, which cannot occupy the same quantum space. That means that bosons are essentially the glue that keeps matter held together.

Using Bose-Einstein statistics, identical bosons are encouraged to crowd into one quantum state. It does not need to be a convenient state for the crowding process to occur.

Bosons can be one of two types: elementary or composite.

Elementary bosons are like photons. Composite bosons are like mesons. Most of them are going to be composite particles, but the standard model does include 5 bosons that are elementary. A graviton is another hypothetical particle that would be conceivably included as a boson if it is determined to exist.

What Are the Different Types of Bosonic Strings?

According to the bosonic string theory, there are four different possible theories that are applicable. It depends on whether an open string is allowed in the theoretical concept and if the strings are given a specific orientation. Since a theory of open strings must also include closed strings, this creates the differentiation.

Bosonic string theory is therefore valid as closed or open and closed, while being oriented or unoriented. Each string theory does have two features in common: they must include a negative energy tachyon and have a massless graviton.

Built into the structure of bosonic string theory is the idea that there are 26 total dimensions instead of the four dimensions that Einstein proposed. One of the dimensions is time, while the others are usually thought of in terms of directional need. The mathematics of the bosonic string theory fall apart if there are not 26 dimensions present.

That is due to the vibrations of the strings that occur. Each string has a movement pattern that is like a sound or light waves. The only difference is that the waves do not involve travel. They’re 1D waves because they only move along the length of the string itself.

Then, as the ends of the string move, 2D is required to describe the motion. This is how the various dimensions begin to build within the theory.

How Does the Bosonic String Theory Fall Short?

The bosonic string theory was the original string theory because if offered several attractive features, but in the physical model, it has two significant issues.

The first issue is the fact that most physical particles are fermions. The bosonic string theory predicts only the existence of bosons.

The second issue is that it predicts a mode of the string with imaginary mass as part of its prediction. This would imply that the bosonic string theory is relatively unstable.

There are also inconsistencies with general space-time dimension because of what is called the conformal anomaly, which is a common issue that faces all string theories.

With 22 extra dimensions, it can be difficult to understand how the universe works. We can understand plotting a coordinate in three dimensions, while we all recognize time, but what about the others? The bosonic string theory suggests they must remain hidden in some way. One theory suggests that they are “rolled up,” but no one has any direct experience with these other dimensions.

This means that although we know more about our universe today than ever before, we have also only begun to scrape the surface of how complex our reality happens to be.

People develop within their environments. This development creates a sense of individuality, but it also creates predictable outcomes. By examining how children and adults react to the development processes in specific environments, it becomes possible to understand how biodirectional influences shape individuals into the people they become.

This process was first proposed by Urie Bronfenbrenner and has heavily influenced the field of developmental psychology. Its model is still relevant today and is widely practiced.

What Are the Systems of the Bioecological Systems Theory?

When Bronfenbrenner first laid out his theory, he identified four different environmental contexts that could modify a person’s development.

  • Microsystems. This is the environment that is closest to the individual. It includes their intimate relationships, direct interactions with their surroundings, and close interpersonal contacts.
  • Mesosystems. This environment includes relationships that those who are within an individual’s microsystem have with others. A child’s best friend has a parent or guardian, so the parent of that child and the parent of the best friend would be part of the mesosystem for each person. The relationship of the children influences the relationship of the parents.
  • Exosystems. This environment does not affect an individual directly. It is the structures that encompass what can happen within a microsystem. If a parent lost their job, then this action would affect a child because it would require them to change how they live in some way.
  • Macrosystems. This is the outer circle of the original systems theory and it includes social, economic, or cultural ideologies that can affect a person’s environment. A government decided to pass and enforce new laws would be an example of this type of environment.

As Bronfenbrenner looked at his original theory, he began to recognize that other key factors could influence a person’s development as well. In 1986, he would shift his theory from ecological systems to bioecological systems.

This update included social contexts and environments because they also influence the learning process for people.

What Is the Chronosystem in the Bioecological Systems Theory?

As Bronfenbrenner began to evolve his theory, he recognized the need to include a chronosystem to his proposal. A chronosystem is a reference to how an individual or an environment changes over time. Bronfenbrenner would place a greater emphasis on the processes involved and the role of a person within the chronosystem while including four total concepts.

  • Process Concept. The goal of processes for people is to help them form more complex reciprocal interactions. This creates rewarding circumstances for the individuals involved and causes them to seek out additional interactions throughout their environment.
  • Person Concept. The characteristics of every individual also play a role in the overall environment. Social interactions can change as a person ages, but the goal is still the same. Every social interaction has the goal of creating a future social interaction that is more complex. This allows people to form relationships that continue to influence them over time.
  • Context Concept. Context, according to Bronfenbrenner, is how the four original environmental influences continue to affect personal development. Each has a direct and/or indirect influence that helps to shape personal characteristics. It also means that personal characteristics have the capability of changing environments reciprocally.
  • Time Concept. Time follows the same structures as the environments. This means there is micro-time, meso-time, and macro-time. Micro-time are the seconds in this present moment that can influence an individual. Meso-time involves the outside processes that can influence an individual over time, such as working for the same employer for 20 years to earn a pension. Macro-time shifts expectations over generations.

By understanding how a person develops within their environmental system, it becomes possible to determine why certain decisions, behaviors, or feelings are interfering with future development opportunities. Incorporating the concepts offered by the bioecological systems theory makes it possible to understand the influences that have helped to shape personal environmental interactions.

Technology has the power to speed up this process dramatically. Because there are such high levels of interconnectivity today, people have larger microsystem environments. This shapes how they react with others because there are more relationships formed, even if individuals only chat online instead of meeting in person.

This creates a knowledge base that can help an individual of any age begin to make new decisions. The new decisions can then shape future personal interactions so that positive outcomes, either socially or structurally, can be achieved over time. These dynamic processes can then help to predict individualized outcomes for how people will view themselves over time.

Burrhus Frederic Skinner believed that the mind was important. He felt that behavior could be observed so that reactions could be studied in its complexity. In the 1920s, classical conditioning was the emphasis of behaviorism theory, but BF Skinner felt like the answers provided were too simplistic. This led him to develop his theory on operant conditioning.

What is an operant? It is an intentional action that effects the surrounding environment or society. The BF Skinner behaviorism theory looks to identify the actions that are taken to identify why some operant behaviors are more common than others.

The 3 Types of Responses in the BF Skinner Behaviorism Theory

Skinner defined operant conditioning by the ability of a person to change their behavior based on the use of a reinforcement. If the reinforcement is given after a desired response, then the mind can train itself to repeat a behavior to anticipate a similar result in the future.

Based on the responses that Skinner could observe through his process of operant conditioning, he was able to identify three specific types of responses or operants that can follow a behavior.

1. Neutral. These responses would not increase or decrease the probability that a behavior would be repeated.
2. Reinforcers. This type of response would increase the likelihood of a repetitive behavior. A reinforcer can be positive or negative to encourage the repetitive response.
3. Punishers. This is the response that would decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. The goal of a punishment is to weaken the behavior so it becomes less desirable in the future.

These responses are seen in virtually every aspect of our society today. Parents use reinforcers and punishers to create a desired response. Children test out specific behaviors with their parents and learn from the positive or negative consequences which result from those behaviors. Employers use them to keep employees productive and following corporate procedures.

Skinner showed that it wasn’t just humans who were susceptible to operant conditioning. Virtually any creature with a mind could be taught specific behaviors through the conditioning process. He proved his theory with his work on what would be come to be called the “Skinner Box.”

How Skinner Proved Positive Reinforcement Was a Training Mechanism

BF Skinner developed a box which contained a lever on the side of it. He would then place a rat inside the box. Whenever the rat interacted with the lever, either intentionally or unintentionally, a piece of food would drop into the box for the rat to eat. After a few times of being placed in the box, every rat would learn to go straight to the lever so they could get food right away.

The consequence of pressing the lever created a positive reward. This encouraged the rats to keep pressing the lever, over and over again, so they could receive more food. Through this action, Skinner was able to provide that a positive reinforcement helps to strengthen a specific behavioral response.

Negative reinforcement also strengthens a behavior. Skinner ran an electrical current through his box, but this time, the rats would need to shut off the current by activating the lever. The consequence of being able to stop receiving the current was enough to encourage the behavior of pulling the lever.

Learned responses can come from this type of activity as well. Skinner eventually taught the rats that if they pushed a button when a light came on, they could stop the electrical current from going into the box in the first place.

The Problem with Punishment and the BF Skinner Behaviorism Theory

Punishment does weaken behavior, but it doesn’t eliminate it. A punished behavior becomes suppressed. It will typically return if there isn’t a threat of punishment present. This suppression increases personal aggression, reduces a person’s ability to cope with difficult circumstances, and can be the foundation of fear.

Punishment essentially tells someone what they should not do. It’s the opposite of a positive reinforcement, which tells someone what they should do.

Because both operants can modify behavior, the positive reinforcements in the behaviorism theory is preferred because it creates meaningful change. Behaviors are modified because the reward centers of the mind are activated. People decide that they want to change because they want the reward.

Punishments do not guide someone toward change. Through fear, the person decides that they will stop the unwanted behavior while in the presence of someone who exerts control over them. When that control is released, the suppression is eliminated, and the behavior returns once again. There is no desire to change.

The BF Skinner behaviorism theory helped to show that feelings, behaviors, and actions are interconnected. By understanding what causes a choice to be made, it becomes possible to repeat positive choices and avoid negative ones.

Everyone has needs that must be met.

Published in 1946, the book Baby and Child Care by Benjamin Spock was one of the first attempts to understand the needs of infants, toddlers, and young children. Spock associated the needs of a child to the dynamics of the family, with special attention paid to the attention that parents offered and their flexibility when handling their needs.

Critics see the Benjamin Spock theory as a method of promoting permissiveness through parenting. This would result in children expecting to be instantly gratified with their needs. The issue with the theory was that the definition of a “want” was often confused with the definition of a “need.”

How Does a Child Define Their Wants and Needs?

Imagine a child is waiting in line at the grocery store with their parent. The child is bored. To relieve that boredom, they begin fiddling with the candy bars, looking through magazines, and randomly screaming at the top of their lungs.

Those who would view these behaviors would likely feel that the child is unfocused. Demanding. When screaming, observers would likely become irritated with the child and their parent if it continued for some time.

Is the desire to remove feelings of boredom a need? Or is it a want?

There are three solutions to this behavior that the parent can use. They can choose to ignore it. They can choose to discipline the child for being disruptive. Or they can take on a leadership role and show the child how to conduct themselves in a way that is not disruptive to the rest of the grocery store.

The Benjamin Spock theory takes the latter approach. Parenting, according to Spock, is about providing their child with clear leadership qualities and behaviors that are set through example. In return, the parent is expected to ask for politeness and cooperation. This creates a give-and-take relationship where needs can be met because the child learns how to recognize the difference between their wants and their needs.

What Is a Need and What is a “Want?”

Children have the same needs that parents attempt to meet for themselves every day. Basic needs include food, water, sleep, shelter, and clothing. According to the Benjamin Spock theory, it is these basic needs that should be met on-demand.

There are supplementary needs that a child may have as well. If a child is asthmatic, then an inhaler would become a basic need because the medicine is necessary for a certain quality of life.

A “want” is something that is unnecessary for the health and wellbeing of a child. If the child at the grocery store demands that their parent purchase a candy bar for them and throws a tantrum until that is rewarded, then the parent has not met the needs of the child. They have satisfied a want.

This is where the criticism of the Benjamin Spock theory takes root. Children that have their “wants” instantly gratified learn through the leadership of their parent that specific behaviors, actions, or questions generate results. Then these children, as they grow older, attempt to use that leadership skill with the rest of the world.

It is why this pediatric theory is often regarded as advocating “permissiveness.”

Why Intuition and Parenting Are Important Partners

Parents have a unique ability to understand the genuine needs of their own child. At the grocery store, their child may be having a tantrum because they see a candy bar and want it. The parent might choose to purchase that candy bar as a method of tempering the behaviors that are being seen in public, but then use that moment for instruction later at home.

“You can have this candy bar,” the parent might say, “but only after we talk about what behaviors are acceptable in public and which behaviors are not acceptable.”

Leadership comes in many different forms. Some leaders directly lead others. Others show their leadership by setting an example. Parents, Spock has argued, can recognize what response will work best for their child in any given moment. That means the intuition of parent, even if it is perceived as “wrong” by others, is still an opportunity to have a child’s needs met.

Ultimately, the response to a parent interacting with their child is also a way to set an example of leadership for the children of those who have responded. Casting blame on those who follow the Benjamin Spock theory is a way to show that leadership isn’t taking responsibility for one’s own actions.

That’s why recognizing wants and needs on the individual level is so important. By meeting needs, healthy interactions and behaviors can grow, and that will one day lead today’s child to become tomorrow’s parent.

Bargaining. Haggling. It is the process of completing a transaction based on a negotiated outcome instead of an outcome that is driven by market forces. Instead of having “perfect competition,” bargaining theory has two or more individuals trying to reach an agreement on any type of transaction so that both parties come away from the process in an advantageous position.

For bargaining to be an effective economic model, however, there must be knowledge and wisdom on all sides involved. If a buyer is uninformed about the product or a seller is unaware of an item’s value, then bargaining can create a transaction that would leave one party in a worse position than if the outcome was based on market forces.

When included with game theories, bargaining can be used for wage negotiations, resource distribution, or even a disarmament treaty between nations.

How Is Bargaining Theory Included in Game Theory?

A “bargaining game” is a situation where two or more entities must reach an agreement. Objects or items of value, such as currency, must be distributed. Each entity involved in the process prefers to reach an agreement instead of trying to do things on their own. Each entity also wants the outcome to favor their interests more than it favors the interests of the others who are involved in the negotiation process.

Take the example of a union negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. The workers within that union would want to maximize their wages and benefits, protecting their rights to the greatest extent possible. The employer would want to minimize the cost of wages and benefits paid to employees, protecting their rights to the greatest extent possible at the same time.

For an agreement to be reached, a compromise must be obtained. Both parties must be willing to move from their “perfect” outcome to reach an outcome that meets some, but not all, of their needs. This allows both to walk away from the negotiation feeling like they could accomplish something and be better off tomorrow than they were today.

Although multiple people may be involved in a negotiation, many bargaining situations involve just two entities. That’s why the Nash bargaining solution is such an important component of the modern bargaining theory.

What Is the Nash Bargaining Solution?

In this example, there are two entities which both want to have some portion of a specific commodity or item of value. According to Nash, this would usually involve some form of currency. The item of value is available in a limited supply.

If the total amount that both entities have requested comes to an amount that is less than what the availability happens to be, then both requests will be fulfilled. Each entity would have their exact demands met.

Should the request be greater than what is available, then neither entity would get their request. They would be required to negotiate with one another to distribute the available resources since the total pool of resources cannot meet their complete needs. Because there is no equilibrium with uncertainty, the outcome depends on the willingness to compromise and the skills of negotiation for each entity.

If there is no willingness, then bargaining theory reaches a disagreement point.

What Is the Disagreement Point in Bargaining Theory?

The disagreement point in a negotiation is reached when there is an expectation that the process could break down or stop. If one entity feels like they are not receiving something of value from the process, then it is better for them to break off the negotiation rather than continue with it. If a disagreement point is pre-determined, it can be recognized when it is reached, and this can protect the individual interests of an entity.

Increasing a personal disagreement point during the process of negotiation can also be advantageous to the party doing so. Not only does it damage the disagreement points of the other entities involved, it can improve the outcome for the entity because the threat of leaving does harm to those who wish to see an outcome achieved.

Bargaining theory allows for greater profitability and standing for every entity that is involved in a transaction. When there is knowledge behind the negotiation process, then every entity can walk away from a transaction feeling like they profited from the experience. If not, then one entity may be able to take advantage of the others to increase their profits, but the transaction will still be completed.

Iron Man has a tokamak ARC reactor in his chest. It’s what helps to power his suit and keep him alive. Now no one may have the unique health needs of Tony Stark, but the idea of being able to obtain virtually unlimited energy is something that could benefit all of us. MIT has developed an arc reactor theory that is plausible to the extent that a donut-shaped fusion reactor could be produced by 2025.

With fusion energy resources that small, virtually anything becomes possible. Self-sustaining energy could power spacecraft, replace aging nuclear reactors, and do so without the same threat of radiation.

How Would a Fusion Arc Reactor Work?

Fusion energy is created when atoms of hydrogen are placed under high heat and pressure. When the exposure reaches a specific temperature and pressure, the atoms of hydrogen will begin to fuse. That fusion forms a helium nucleus, a neutron, and a ridiculous amount energy that could be harvested for any number of tasks or needs.

Two kinds of hydrogen atoms are used to create this fusion: deuterium and tritium. Then a gas is injected into the containment vessel, the ARC reactor, to form the reaction. This creates a hot plasma, over 150 million degrees, that can release the energy which was created from the reaction.

Because the plasma is heated to such an extent, magnetic fields are required to keep it off the walls of the chamber. The magnetic fields would be created by including superconducting coils around the rounded shape of the ARC reactor. An electrical current would then be driven into the plasma as it forms to sustain the field.

The Challenge of a Typical Arc Reactor Theory

Before the MIT design for an arc reactor, the primary challenge of creating a fusion reaction has been the inclusion of the magnetic coils. For previous designs, the strength of the magnetic fields was not enough to keep the plasma off the walls, which would eventually cause a catastrophic failure if the reactor should it be operational.

The 2015 MIT design uses superconductors that are manufactured using barium copper oxide, which is a rare-earth element. These superconductors are manufactured into tapes, which creates a stronger magnetic field. The design of the arc reactor is also smaller than other tokamak designs, which means the reactor can be built faster and cheaper when compared to other arc reactor theories.

This means the achievable amount of power from the fusion reaction would be to the fourth power of the increase that the magnetic field is able to achieve. If the field strength could be doubled, then the amount of power the fusion reactor could produce is 16 times greater, allowing for a dramatic increase in useable power resources.

Cost is another challenge which must be met. The MIT design that uses the arc reactor theory is essentially the same design of a larger fusion power device that is being constructed in France. Called ITER, the process was started in 1985 and is a collaborative process to demonstrate the benefits of a fusion reaction through a 35-year process. Although the value of the demonstration of ITER may be priceless should it come online and produce power, the total cost of this one facility is expected to exceed $40 billion.

Why Choose Fusion Energy Over Other Forms of Energy?

With the current arc reactor theory, the massive amount of power generated by the fusion reaction would be environmentally friendly. After the manufacturing process is completed, fossil fuels would not be necessary to create energy. The fusion reaction would not produce any greenhouse gas emissions when operational and there would be no radioactive waste.

Once operational, the ARC reactor would provide virtually unlimited power.

Although the idea of fusion seems to be costly, especially with the final cost estimates of ITER, there are designs which use the arc reactor theory that have a comparable cost to starting a new coal-fired power plant. It would provide a similar electrical output to the more traditional power plant as well.

At this point, however, there has never been a fusion reaction created that has produced as much energy as it consumed, so net energy production is the next step to take in this theory. The updated designs and ideas by MIT suggest that this single reactor, despite its size, could provide power for up to 100,000 households.

For many in this field, the goal is to have fusion energy become active in the 22nd century. With the arc reactor theory, it may be possible to speed up that timeline considerably.