how do I connect Erik Erikson and the ecological systems theory?
823383
not sure if you can but here's what i'd do.  on separate paper, list Erickson's overall developmental theory(ies) and on another paper, list the ecological systems theory.  by using the cross-matching process, and by the standards you set or were set for you, see if you can match 5 or more out of, say, 10. if you can do that, you're on a (buttered) roll.  if not, you're toast!
97371
Have enough picture/word cards of animals/plants in a food chain for each student to have one.  You need a big ball of yarn or string.  Put the students in a circle.  The lowest person on the food chain starts.  They hold the string and throw the ball to the next highest person on the chain (preferably, they are not sitting in order).  That person holds on to the string and tosses the ball to the next person.  \n\nAt the end, you've formed a web of interconnected species.  To simulate environmental changes, have a few students drop their part of the web.  It will fall and dissinigrate showing how a healthy ecosystem is dependant on all of its occupants.\n\nHope that helps.
399702
This website has all sorts of links to other websites related to the book, including activities and author biographies, etc.: \n\nhttp://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/S00001512.shtml\n\nHope that helps!
964468
http://www.earthportals.com/Portal_Messenger/greer.html\n\nFrom this site I can gather that while Steven is not a complete idiot (he has a doctorate in something), he is not in any position to be making such claims (his medical doctorate is in trauma medicine... not astronomy, not general biology, not evolution not even environmental science).\n\nAs I go on to read the page's statement he sounds to me like a kind of interstellar James Lovelock, who pioneered the "scientific" Gaia Hypothesis.  This is where it gets sticky for me... I do somewhat believe in the Gaia Hypothesis (more in its interconnectedness than its ability to heal).  Carl Sagan opposed Lovelock and his hypothesis, and he is my hero so I've always been a little torn on the subject.\n\nI don't think there can be a universal Gaia Hypothesis which seems to be what Dr. Greer is hinting at because life is not connected between planets.  Obviously.  When we die on Earth microbes on Mars don't eat our bodies.  Billions of years later some of the atoms that were once in us might bombard an atom that used to be in a rock on Mars but we don't seem to have much effect on it.\n\nI read on... granted this is new to me, but the conscious oneness... is he saying that we are consciously connected? If this is even possible for humans, which is certainly debatable, I'd think we would notice strange influences from aliens.  But I'm not sure what he is talking about.  And then he states a lot of the obvious.\n\nNow... it might just be me, but in my years I have noticed that bullshitters tend to fallow a particular pattern.  Vague claims with almost nonsensical big words and no examples are fallowed or mixed in with precise and obvious claims that have very little to do with what they are talking about.  Such as "Collective mineral deposites are the very essence of our planet and souls or some similar entity is bound to manifest itself in such a hospitible and common location.   After all we've all seen rocks.  And we've all felt the presence of souls.  Allow me to introduce Occam's Razor..."\nHe is fallowing that format.\n\n\nDear sweet god, someone put this man in a Public Speaking class.\n\nShitloads of stating the obvious mixed in with obscure associations.\n\nReading the core principals I see that this has a critical flaw for the scientific community, it is seperating itself from science... he will never be able to prove this using science.\n\n"Even physical matter has an aspect of its nature which is non-local, transcendent and conscious"... rocks are conscious?\nLight is transcendent... in that it can instantaneously affect other light without transcending space.\n\nIn the second point this assumes that animals also have spirits... all living things, even plants and bacteria.  Fine, I'll go along with that.\n\nAh, here is his out.  The non-biological spiritual beings in point three... any discrepancies with the physical world can be blamed on those.  Sadly he says that they can affect the physical and that poses a problem since the physical world is described by science.\n\nBy his fourth point everything is everywhere?\n\nHis fifth point draws in faith again.  But most religions currently assert that only God is everywhere and in everything.\n\nWell in short, he isn't putting forth his arguments very clearly or giving support... red flag.\nHe is an MD in an unrelated feild.\nHis theories use too many different ideas from different areas needing different kinds of proof.  Most of this can either never be proven or is likely to be disproven.\n\nThe point of this seems to be to open our eyes to all sorts of life.  This is a good thing but he is going about it the wrong way I think.  Sure it is likely that life comes in many different forms that will look completely new to us but the ones we can have interactions with will be physical.  Ghosts and dreams and telepathic communications have some physical
311984
Well, you could connect them in a few ways. One would be to study ice cores (from glaciers) to see what was in the atmosphere over time, which shows you trends in long-term weather changes. Another would be to study coastal zones and make predictions and models concerning what happens in different zones when sea levels rise due to global climate change. The imagination knows no end to what you can study!
1053486
Three words; Sven Goran Erikkson.
266895
What you need to do is search out an author named Duncan Watts.  He is an associate professor of sociology at Columbia University and has written a few simple books in the subject.  My favorite, and the one I teach from, is Understanding American Government and Politics (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0719073278 this is the brand new edition).  I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to look past the media and focus on the processes themselves.
555111
Here are a couple of great sites on pond ecosystems, including a powerpoint presentation.\n\nI hope this helps.
919768
Community and/or Ecosystem
819315
i suggest symbiosis for correesspondence
508510
i haven read it but u can try www.sparksnotes.com or www.cliffnotes.com for help.
938546
Sociotechnical systems theory is a theory stating that effective work sites have joint optimization of their social and technological systems, and that teams should have sufficient autonomy to control key variances in the work process.
371178
We are talking Ibsen here, right? OK, how about this.\n\nIn A Doll's House, Henrik Ibsen raises the question of happiness still relevant in our time. The author presents a situation where one of the female protagonists is forced by society to sacrifice her personal fulfilment on the altar of social conventions.\n\nThat was so far the formulation of the question. Now we proceed with the analysis. \n\nFrom the first pages of the book, the reader witnesses the efforts of the female character to follow her duty. Yet no matter how hard she tries, she fails. At the end, she finally comes to the realization that her misery stems from misapplication of her talents. Expected to be a mother and a wife, the woman forgets about her own happiness. This is not the way, the author seems to tell us. The young woman's depression creates an unpleasant atmosphere in the house which affects even the well being of the little children.\nThis is essentially the reason for the mother leaving her children at the end. Only by declaring her independence from the patriarchal society, can she find her own happiness. And only then, will she be able to give her offspring what they deserve, a peaceful atmosphere in the house, genarated by the contedness of each individual.\nAs Ibsen  unequivocally shows us, one has to follow his won dreams and raise the new generation according to similar ideals of self fulfillment and independence. This, according to the author, is the key to happy society in general, and family life in particular.\n\nOk, this is the gist of it. You can change what doesn't fit your thoughts, and add, to present your own opinion.\nHope this helps.
370638
yes, it's a great work in the tradition of social contract theory. you should also read his book Political Liberalism.
282954
Since you have posted within the last hour I promise to return with a good answer.\nIn the meantime I will let you search while I do the same into my notes.\nLook into Behaviorists Theories (Erik Erikson, Jean Piaget, B.F. Skinner, Lev Vygotsky, etc.) in your Sociology Textbook in the meanwhile.  Jose\nAs promised:\nIn an effort to provide a partial answer at this time to the question of what is Behavior (ism), Cognitive (ism), and Constructivism in Sociology I will indicate the following in reference to Social Constructivism.\n\nSocial Constructivism by Disassociative/Associative Applied Formal Thought and Practice\nSymbolic Interactionists emphasize how our ideas help determine our reality and thusly afford us with the Thomas Theorem (Thomas, W.I. & Thomas, Dorothy S. 1928); “If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences,”—The Social Construction of Reality.  Through our interactions with others, we construct reality as we learn (build/construct) ways of looking at our experiences in life and construct behavior that is ethically conducive towards an objective.  \n\nFor example is found below from a study by Henslin, James M. & Biggs, Mae (1971/2003); Henslin, James M., Essentials of Sociology, A Down To Earth Approach 5th Ed, Boston, 2004:\n\nA scenario is presented as “In a Gynecological Examination.” \nIn (5) five scenes this author/protagonists (Henslin & Biggs 1971/2003) will advance a sociology student into what is an example of ‘Social Construction (civisms).’ They will remove the emotional sense of sexuality from a physical examination of intimate body parts while professionally engaged intimately toward a particular objective; a pelvic examination.\n\nScene 1: The Patient as a Person\nScene 2: From Person to Pelvic\nScene 3: The Person as Pelvic\nScene 4: From Pelvic to Person\nScene 5: From Patient to Person \n\nScene I—(The patient as a person) \nIn this scene the doctor (male) maintains eye contact with his patient (female), calls her by her name, and discussed her problems in a professional manner.  If he decides that a vaginal examination is necessary, he tells a nurse, “Pelvic in Room 1.”  \nBy this statement, he is announcing that a major change will occur in the next scene.\n\nScene II—(From person to pelvic)\nThis scene is-The Depersonalization Stage.  In line with the Doctor’s announcement, the patient begins the transition from a “person” to a “pelvic.”  \nThe Doctor leaves the room, and a female nurse enters to help the patient make the transition.  The nurse prepares the “props” for the coming examination and answers any questions the woman might have.  What occurs at this point is essential for the “social construction of reality,” for the doctor’s absence removes even the suggestion of sexuality.  To undress in front of him could suggest either a striptease or intimacy, thus undermining the reality being so carefully defined, that of non-sexuality.  Also at this point the patient will sense concern about what to do with her panties. “I don’t want him to see them, I’ll place tem in my purse or under my other clothes.” Both the patient and the Medical professionals reach for social constructionism as they remove any hint of sexuality.  \n\nScene III—(The person as pelvic) \nThis scene opens when the Doctor enters the room.  Before him is a woman lying on a table, her feet in stirrups, her knees tightly together, and her body covered by a drape sheet.  The Doctor seats himself on a low stool before the woman, tells her, “let your knees fall apart” (rather than the sexually loaded “spread your legs”), and begins the examination.\n\nScene IV—(From pelvic to person) \nIn this scene, the patient is “repersonalized.”  The doctor has left the examination room; the patient dresses and fixes her hair and makeup.  Her reemergence as a person is indicated by such statements to the nurse as, “My dress isn’t too wrinkled,
1007552
The dynamic encounter theory is the theory for the historical origin of the planets as a result of a near collision of the sun and another star.\nThis theory was first proposed by Georges Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), director of the royal botanical collection in Paris. Later Buffon disassociated himself from his own views, affirming (in an echo of Galileo) that he held to the literal Mosaic account and would give up his theory of the formation of the planets, which had been only "a purely philosophical supposition" (i.e., a thought experiment). These statements were probably ironic, since Buffon's later efforts continued his former work.
423840
That was a very good answer- But the question is so broad and important nobody would have space to give it the space it deserves.  There is an absolutely fantastic book called "Guns, germs, and steel" that goes into the differential evolution of cultures and societies, and gives this a very good treatment, plus it's written very well and easy to read- My 12 yr old boy read and understood it very well, and even enjoyed it (not as much as "The day my butt exploded" but there ya go"