We would act as if we were programmed with great preciseness to correctly play this strategic game. We do not have as much knowledge and instincts about the game as much as professional players do so randomness would be hard to achieve. Also we as players, however, could feel freer to condition on our own past choices as an aid in achieving any desired move frequencies in these cases. We would have constant or less rotational opponent and won’t have good record keeping as we do not play professional games that could be recorded and referred to. c) Advice to players who do not play perfectly and whose opponents do not play perfectly?
He would always diminish the positive feeling an employee would have and also press on the mistakes made without any positive reinforcement when a good job is done. This makes for a very harsh and bad style of leadership. 2. Choose two theories of competitive anxiety and contrast how well they do in explaining a real-life example of anxiety in sports (based on your experience or observations). -Somatic
6. No because I feel that is so weak ! Some body bested you and instated of understanding why you got beat, you try to take him out 7. That’s a really weak way to gain the advantage but even though its not part of the game players do it. 8.
The intensity of it is called arousal. If training leads to boredom you will lose motivation. If you are 'wound up' you are suffering from anxiety: you will feel tension in your body and this can prevent you from performing well.
Taleb rarely points out data or figures in defense of his arguments and defends the same by saying that it is a mistake to use statistics without logic, but not vice versa. We underestimate the share of randomness in about everything, due to myriad biases we often tend to attribute our successes to our skills and blame bad luck for our failures. Risk taking is described as random foolishness. People are taught to think simple and that simplification is also dangerous. Thus there are two poles, extreme thinkers and simplifiers, both of whom are dangerous.
Nevertheless, could be really unsocial and unsustainable when it has to work in stable situation, because mainly his peers and subordinates they will not accept or tolerate that style for long periods of time. According to Amok his style could be title as Directive and Pacetting, which means that entails command and control behavior that at times became coercive. It also involves leading by example and personal heroics. The advantages of these styles are that it fuels innovation, productivity and growth but on the other side ultimately could erode organizational performance, demolishing trust and undermine morale. This type of style can be observd in Alex when he mention that he had been hired to shake up the product team and launch the product quickly.
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
It’s common sense not to text and drive. Many People already notice that it’s wrong but they still tend to do so because they are selfish and self- centered. They don’t care about the safety of others as well as their self. It can lose your life or someone else’s and once you do it you can’t undo what you did. You can make that mistake but you cannot change its result.
In this instance it seems to me as if they are not used to using simple logic and reason, they involve themselves in battle yet expect to have no harm done to them. This makes me question their judgment. The gods choose sides not by what they feel is right but by routing for their favorite war hero, almost like today’s modern version of football. In contrast with the glorious tragedy of the human moral conflict, the conflicts between the gods seem less serious, more frivolous, and extremely petty. The humans seem more “god-like” to me because the fight not for drama but for justice and freedom.
Some teachers may even let you slide when it comes to pulling your weight if you are a “star” player which only hurts you in the long run. You also sharpen your hand eye coordination. However with all of the advantages there are some disadvantages. Let’s discuss some of those as well. Of course there are the injuries.