Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Theories of Motivation


Theories of Motivation:

*Rational economic man - people are primarily motivated by economic needs. In the workplace, their feelings must be controlled by the organization. (a theoretical individual found in economic models, who acts entirely for reasons of self-interest without any concern for others. As a consumerhe always looks for the product that gives most satisfaction, as aproducer for the product that gives most profit.)

*Social man - people are motivated by their relationships with others and without this they do not exist. The need to belong to social groups and teams is critical.

*Self actualising man - people are self motivated and self controlled. Given the appropriate opportunities and resources they will apply their talents to achieve mutual goals.

*Complex man - people are variable in what motivates them. Their self motivation changes from time to time, and through time, and from situation to situation.  (that man has a hierarchy of needs.)

*The motivated man – Individual workers have two different categories of needs that are independent of each other but affect human behavior in different ways.

*The Three-Tiered Satisfied Man – A combination of Maslow and Herzberg’s motivation and Alderfers.

*The achiever – People woth hogh need to achieve, do achieve more than those with low need and with no need at all.

*The Expectant Man – A theory where the workers perceived competence to do a job well and the equitable reward he considers fair and just.

*The Managed Man – manager’s assumption about people and their consequent operationalized defines his style of managing. This is labeled by Theory X (the manager assumes that a typical person dislikes work and will avoud if he can – has been associated with closed autocratic style) and Theory Y (the manager assumes that a typical person, work is as natural as paly or rest; has been associated with open and participative management style) of Mc Gregor.

*The learning – Reinforced Man – man learns from his environment and greater control of this environment improves his development.

*Psychological man - people are a complex, evolving, maturing, organism with an ego ideal to strive for. Everything they experience, including their work and its environment, is part of their identity.

Maslow theory of motivation:
Abraham Maslow (1908 - 1990), an American psychologist. He pointed out that motivation was NOT something done TO people by others but fundamentally came from people's INNER NEEDS. In striving to satisfy these needs, people were motivated to take action and achieve.
Maslow suggested that there were five common needs that operated as a hierarchy. That is, only when the most fundamental need was satisfied would the next need act as a motivator, as follows:

* Maslow suggests that people will be moved firstly to satisfy theirsecurity (physiological) needs (e.g. needs for food, rest, exercise, air)

* once those needs are satisfied, people would then seek to satisfy theirsafety needs (e.g. shelter, protection from danger and threats)

* having satisfied that need, people would seek to satisfy their social needs (e.g. to belong to a tribe or group or team, to associate and relate with others, to be accepted)

* once these needs were satisfied, people would seek to satisfy theirstatus needs (e.g. self esteem, recognition by others, pride, dignity)

* and, finally, people would seek to satisfy their self actualisation needs(e.g. self respect, self confidence, autonomy of achievement, realisation of potential).

An alternative interpretation of this one of the motivation theories is that any of these needs may become frustrated and rise to the top of the hierarchy.
Gandhi, for example, threatened his security needs (by going on hunger strike) to satisfy his self actualisation needs (to achieve independence for India).

How to Build a Strong Argument?


Introduction
We each start out in life with a complete set of skills and abilities. And then each of us decides how to best develop these traits according to our individual inclinations. In my view, knowing how to build strong arguments is definitely a skill that should be developed among the first. Think of it how important it is to learn how to talk to other people, how to communicate effectively how write a concrete paper and how to make your perspective known. Building compelling arguments is taking things one step even further. If you want to make people aware of a particular issue or if you want a larger group to act in a certain way, you need to make a solid case for yourself. Now, how to we build strong arguments?

  
Before we discuss on how to make a strong argument, we should learn first what an argument is and what are the types of an argument.
An Argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. Many arguments can also be formulated in a formal language. An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

There are two types of arguments: Deductive and Inductive Argument.
Deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:
Or, in other words: the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
  1. All men are mortal. (premise)
  2. Socrates was a man. (premise)
  3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
An Inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:
Or in other words: the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true.
  1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
  2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
  3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
 After defining what an argument looks like and what its type, now we can start building a strong argument. Here are the steps I find on the internet:

The Title
Just as with any writing, it’s important to make a first impression. For an argument that has a form appropriate for the use of title (formal oral or written), this is the opportunity to make that first impression.
  • Puns
  • Humor
  • Using words or examples from the main argument to be found later
  • Asking a question
  • Avoid clichés
  • Don’t be boring
Introduction
The key with the intro is to smoothly slide into your argument while appearing to entertain–unless of course you’re doing some sort of strict or formal deal, at which point you can take the line of, “in this argument I intend to show”, etc. etc. But most arguments don’t happen in this fashion, so I’m going to cover the natural form.
Consider these as openers:
  • personal anecdote
  • a nifty quote
  • shocking stats (the more solid the better, of course)
  • an image that will prompt a reaction
  • a question
Regardless of how you set it up, the main point is to blend naturally into your main argument, which is defined by your thesis statement.
Your Thesis
This statement basically frames the entire argument. It’s critical that you are very careful with it, as you will be defending it for the rest of the talk, paper, debate, etc.
The thesis is what you are trying to convince the readers/listeners of. It is not a fact; it’s a proposition (also known as “declarative sentence”) that has to be proven by your forthcoming argument.


Supporting Paragraphs
Just as you were taught in high school to do with essays, we support arguments (which an essay basically is) by using body paragraphs. These give support to your primary claim made in your introduction / thesis.
The strongest support often comes from well-respected data on the topic you’re discussing, e.g. data from large, well-done studies, solid polling data (if you’re discussing opinion), etc. The key is to have the data come from a source that is least exposed to scrutiny due to small sample sizes, faulty methodologies, or bias.
Addressing the Counterargument
Your argument will face opposition; it’s up to you to figure out exactly what shape that resistance will take, and to adequately handle it preemptively at various points within your supporting paragraphs.
Be careful to approach these counterarguments with respect, and to form a significant attack on your own idea when addressing the counterarguments. To stand up a weaker version of the real counter, only to knock it down with ease, will cause many to dismiss your entire effort outright.
Also try to avoid rude, hostile, or deprecating language when addressing counterpoints; this tactic can easily result in the audience that you most care about (those who disagree with you) ignoring your argument due to adverse emotional reaction.
Conclusion
The conclusion should basically restate your originial proposition (claim), and then lay out the support you have given to it. You can slightly restate your claim, but avoid adding any additional claims–as these too would require their own support.
Tips for Your Arguments:
·         Avoid emotional language
·         Know the difference between a logical conclusion and an emotional point of view
·         Don't make up evidence
·         Cite your sources
·         Make an outline
·         Be prepared to defend your side by knowing the strongest arguments for the other side. You might be challenged by the teacher or by another student.


Reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/answers.htm
http://www.internetlogic.org/argtypes.html
http://homeworktips.about.com/od/essaywriting/a/argument.htm
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning