Health Care
There are a number of innovations that can lower the cost of health care. The first category of innovation is prevention. Researchers are studying the issue of prevention more intently, as the cost benefits of avoiding illness, or of early detection, are evident. Exploration of the human genome is particularly important in helping the health care industry in early detection, and prevention. Gene therapy and other innovations can help keep people from getting certain conditions in the first place, and when such innovations are focused on chronic conditions, they can dramatically lower the total cost of health care.
Another type of innovation that can lower the cost of health care is anything that reduces the length of stay or the invasiveness of procedures. Many such innovations, such as arthroscopic surgery, have already contributed to lowering the costs associated with certain procedures. Robotics is a major player here, having the potential to make surgeries safer and less invasive. Where people spend less time in hospital, and less time in medical care, this reduces health care costs. There are other ways as well, such as insurance reform or reform on the new drug application process that can lower costs as well, but some of the best potential comes from new technologies and techniques that target some of the most important cost drivers -- chronic illness and hospital stays.
Critical Thinking
Reality television has a negative impact on society. The first premise to this argument is that reality television is sufficiently popular to have an impact on our society. Networks realized that reality television programming is cheap to produce, relative to the audiences that it draws. This makes it one of the more consistently profitable formats, and combined with the increased number of cable channels, there has been an explosion of reality television programming. Many such shows and their "stars" have become household names. The high level of interactivity of reality television with its audience has also helped it to become a ubiquitous entertainment form (Malone, 2014).
The second premise is that reality television has a negative influence on society. There is ample evidence to support this contention. Reality television may in fact warp viewer's perceptions of reality, as they may start to believe that the people and scenraios presented in some way reflect real life, or how people should conduct themselves in real life (Jacobs, 2013). Anti-fat attitudes were stronger after exposure to The Biggest Loser, one study found (Domoff, 2012) and another study showed that it has a negative effect of people's perceptions of body image in general (Wegenstein, 2011).
The conclusion that can be drawn is that reality television has a negative impact on society. It is a big enough phenomenon to affect society, and the effects have been demonstrated in scholarly studies to be negative.
Industrial Psychology
I joined one group mostly to learn a new skill. Basically the group concerns something I was interested in, and there was perceived value in that. The group performed reasonably well with regards to that -- I learned a lot -- but I feel that its contribution was greater. I feel that the group served an important social purpose for me as well. There ended up being a good affiliation element to the group, and a play element as well, both of those being unexpected.
The reason the group has been as successful as it was, I think, is that the communication has flowed well. The norm is very positive, and this has resulted in a collaborative atmosphere. The composition of the group is diverse demographically, but homogenous in terms of all having a common interest or two that have really allowed everybody to be on the same page and work towards common goals. The lack of leadership has actually helped in this regard, because there are no sides to take - conflicts barely exist and are worked out quite quickly. It's a well-functioning group, which I think it why it conveys the additional benefits to me that I was not expecting.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.