background preloader

Power (philosophy)

Power (philosophy)
In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people. The term authority is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings. In the corporate environment, power is often expressed as upward or downward. With downward power, a company's superior influences subordinates. The use of power need not involve coercion (force or the threat of force). Much of the recent sociological debate on power revolves around the issue of the enabling nature of power. Power may be held through: Erica Grier, a professor of Psychology at Harvard University, categorized power into the following possible sub-headings: Aggressive (forceful)Manipulative (persuasion) In everyday situations people use a variety of power tactics to push or prompt people into particular action. Soft and hard Rational and nonrational Unilateral and bilateral Related:  Evolutionary Psych

Lack of Self-Confidence "Self-confidence is not a feeling of superiority, but of independence." Lama Yeshe "Self-confidence is knowing that we have the capacity to do something good and firmly decide not to give up." His Holiness the Dalai Lama Lack of self-confidence or low self-esteem is not directly defined in the Buddhist tradition, but it would certainly be classified as a negative emotion or delusion, as it exaggerates one's limitations in capacity, quality and potential for growth. Lack of self-confidence can be made up of several different aspects like: guilt, anger turned inward, unrealistic expectations of perfection, false sense of humility, fear of change or making mistakes, depression etc. From "The Art of Happiness at Work" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Howard C. " have greater self-awareness or understanding means to have a better grasp of reality. A view from Shantideva: "Self-confidence should be applied to wholesome actions, Overcoming of delusions and my ability to overcome them.

Integrative Thinking « Roger Martin In this primer on the problem-solving power of “integrative thinking,” Martin draws on more than 50 management success stories, including the masterminds behind The Four Seasons, Proctor & Gamble and eBay, to demonstrate how, like the opposable thumb, the “opposable mind”-Martin’s term for the human brain’s ability “to hold two conflicting ideas in constructive tension”-is an intellectually advantageous evolutionary leap through which decision-makers can synthesize “new and superior ideas.” Using this strategy, Martin focuses on what leaders think, rather than what they do. Among anecdotes and examples steering readers to change their thinking about thinking, Martin gives readers specific strategies for understanding their own “personal knowledge system” (by parsing inherent qualities of “stance,” “tools” and “experience”), as well as for taking advantage of the “richest source of new insight into a problem,” the “opposing model.”

Pouvoir (philosophie) Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Pour les articles homonymes, voir Pouvoir. Pouvoir vient du verbe pouvoir qui signifie « avoir la capacité » ou « avoir la possibilité » de faire, de percevoir etc. Par exemple, lorsqu'on dit que l'on peut faire quelque chose, cela veut dire que : on en possède la capacité ;personne ne nous en empêche ;on ne craint pas les conséquences ;concernant certaines formes d'expression, on dit simplement qu'on ne « peut pas » ; Le pouvoir est donc proche de la question de la possibilité. À l'échelle individuelle, avoir le pouvoir signifierait avoir la possibilité de faire. Le terme démocratie signifie étymologiquement « pouvoir du peuple ». Dans un système simple, le pouvoir ne peut être que rapport de forces (force morale ou force physique). Il y a donc de nombreuses situations de pouvoir, et de multiples façons de classer l'exercice du pouvoir Ainsi ont pu apparaître des analyses plus pragmatiques. On distingue différentes formes de pouvoir :

Milgram experiment The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.[1] The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? The experiment[edit] Milgram Experiment advertisement The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks.

Integrative thinking Integrative Thinking is a field which was originated by Graham Douglas in 1986.[1][2][3] He describes Integrative Thinking as the process of integrating intuition, reason and imagination in a human mind with a view to developing a holistic continuum of strategy, tactics, action, review and evaluation for addressing a problem in any field. A problem may be defined as the difference between what one has and what one wants. Integrative Thinking may be learned by applying the SOARA (Satisfying, Optimum, Achievable Results Ahead) Process devised by Graham Douglas to any problem. The SOARA Process employs a set of triggers of internal and external knowledge. Definition used by Roger Martin[edit] The Rotman School of Management defines integrative thinking as: The website continues: "Integrative thinkers build models rather than choose between them. Background[edit] Theory[edit] Integrative thinkers differ from conventional thinkers among a number of dimensions. Influences[edit] Criticism[edit]

Social order In social sciences, social order is a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce ways of relating and behaving.[citation needed] Social order as discussed in this article primarily refers to these structures and not to "order in society" with which it should not be confused. In this way, a society might be chaotic and dysfunctional but there is still a social order in a sheer sociological sense. Sociology[edit] The issue of social order, how and why it is that social orders exists at all, is historically central to sociology. Principle of extensiveness[edit] Another key factor concerning social order is the principle of extensiveness. A good example of this is smaller religions based around the U.S., such as the Amish. Groups and networks[edit] In every society people belong to groups, such as businesses, families, churches, athletic groups, or neighborhoods. Status groups[edit] Values and norms[edit] Spontaneous order[edit]

Reciprocal determinism Reciprocal determinism is the theory set forth by psychologist Albert Bandura that a person's behavior both influences and is influenced by personal factors and the social environment. Bandura accepts the possibility of an individual's behavior being conditioned through the use of consequences. At the same time he asserts that a person's behavior (and personal factors, such as cognitive skills or attitudes) can impact the environment.[1] These skill sets result in an under- or overcompensated ego that, for all creative purposes are too strong or too weak to focus on pure outcome. As an example, Bandura's reciprocal determinism could occur when a child is acting out in school. Reciprocal determinism is the idea that behavior is controlled or determined by the individual, through cognitive processes, and by the environment, through external social stimulus events. Research[edit] Reciprocal determinism and Mathematics Triadic reciprocal causation[edit] See also[edit] Notes[edit]

Overconfidence effect The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high.[1] For example, in some quizzes, people rate their answers as "99% certain" but are wrong 40% of the time. It has been proposed that a metacognitive trait mediates the accuracy of confidence judgments,[2] but this trait's relationship to variations in cognitive ability and personality remains uncertain.[1] Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities. Demonstration[edit] The most common way in which overconfidence has been studied is by asking people how confident they are of specific beliefs they hold or answers they provide. Overprecision is the excessive confidence that one knows the truth. Confidence intervals[edit] Planning fallacy[edit] Illusion of control[edit] Contrary evidence[edit] Overplacement[edit] Better-than-average effects[edit]

Domination Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Étymologie[modifier | modifier le code] Domination vient du latin dominus (maître, seigneur, propriétaire) et peut se décliner entre plusieurs significations voisines : [interprétation personnelle] [réf. nécessaire] la domination au sens géographique : être au-dessus (la montagne domine la plaine) ;la domination sur le plan de la position tactique : être majoritaire en nombre ou en efficacité (dans un jeu, l'équipe – qui est en avance au score – domine les autres) ;la domination (sur le plan du comportement relationnel) : expression d'une conception et d'une pratique asymétriques et inégalitaires de la relation sociale avec autrui. Acception générale (sociologie)[modifier | modifier le code] Max Weber évoque le concept de domination dans ses livres Économie et société (1921) et surtout La domination [1]. – la domination traditionnelle, – la domination charismatique et – la domination rationnelle-légale ou légale-rationnelle. Pouvoir : Thèmes liés :

Self-efficacy Self-efficacy is the extent or strength of one's belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals.[1] Psychologists have studied self-efficacy from several perspectives, noting various paths in the development of self-efficacy; the dynamics of self-efficacy, and lack thereof, in many different settings; interactions between self-efficacy and self-concept; and habits of attribution that contribute to, or detract from, self-efficacy. This can be seen as the ability to persist and a person's ability to succeed with a task. As an example, self-efficacy directly relates to how long someone will stick to a workout regimen or a diet. Self-efficacy affects every area of human endeavor. Judge et al. (2002) argued the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy (which differs from Bandura's theory of self-efficacy) and self-esteem measured the same, single factor and demonstrated them to be related concepts.[3] Theoretical approaches[edit] Motivation 1. 2. 3.

Framing (social sciences) In the social sciences, framing is a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Framing is the social construction of a social phenomenon often by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. It is generally considered in one of two ways: as frames in thought, consisting of the mental representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality, and frames in communication, consisting of the communication of frames between different actors.[1] The effects of framing can be seen in many journalism applications. When one seeks to explain an event, the understanding often depends on the frame referred to. In the field of communication, framing defines how news media coverage shapes mass opinion.

Hegemony In the 19th century, hegemony came to denote the "Social or cultural predominance or ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu". Later, it could be used to mean "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society."[7] Also, it could be used for the geopolitical and the cultural predominance of one country over others; from which was derived hegemonism, as in the idea that the Great Powers meant to establish European hegemony over Asia and Africa.[8] The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, associated particularly with Antonio Gramsci, is the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a society, so that their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung): in Terry Eagleton's words, 'Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates'.[9] Etymology Historical examples 8th–1st centuries BCE 1st–14th centuries CE 15th–19th centuries 20th century