ICT and society portfolio section Essay Example for Free

ICT and society portfolio section Essay Microsoft word Microsoft Word is a word processor program from Microsoft. It was originally written by Richard Brodie for IBM PC computers running DOS in 1983. Later versions were created for the Apple Macintosh (1984), SCO UNIN, and Microsoft Windows (1989). It became part of the Microsoft Office. Microsoft word is a software package which can be used for school work, course work, home work or personal work such as making posters or fliers. So it is extremely useful, especially if you have untidy handwriting because Microsoft word can improve your presentation not only by improving your writing but also can improve presentation by adding pictures, this can be done using a feature called clipart which allows me too insert pictures to my work. Another good point about this is that it has a feature called spell check, which is handy if you are bad at spelling because if you spelt a word wrong then it will either automatically correct it or show you a list of words to help you. The only bad point about spell check is that it doesnt recognise every word and that sometimes it uses the American spelling of words. Other god points include the fact that if you are doing something such as an essay or coursework which requires a lot of writing because you can easily change your words if you make a mistake whereas if you were writing it out by hand then you would have to rewrite everything from the beginning. Microsoft Excel Excel 2003 enables you to turn data into information with powerful tools to analyze, communicate, and share results. Excel 2003 can help you work better in teams, and help protect and control access to your work. In addition, you can work with industry-standard Extensible Mark-up Language (NML) data to make it easier to connect to business processes. Just like Microsoft word, excel is a software package which can be used for school work, course work, home work or personal work. Mostly excel is used in business in order to keep track of financial status and to record data required to run a business. The good points about Microsoft excel is that you can use features such as auto sum which allows you to quickly and easily count up numbers, another feature is the graph function which allows you to create graphs easily, the graphs make the figures easier to understand and improves presentation. Microsoft access Microsoft Access is a relational database management system from Microsoft, packaged with Microsoft Office Professional. Microsoft Access can use data stored in Access/Jet, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, or any ODBC-compliant data container. Skilled software developers and data architects use it to develop powerful, complen application software. Relatively unskilled programmers and non-programmer power users can use it to build simple applications without having to deal with features they dont understand. Microsoft Access was also the name of a communications program from Microsoft, meant to compete with ProComm and other programs. This Microsoft Access proved a failure and was dropped. Years later Microsoft reused the name for its database software. Microsoft access is normally used in areas such as hospitals in order to keep a record of all the patients. Another area where databases are used is in buissness in order to keep track of financial staus and contacts. Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft publisher Microsoft Publisher is a desktop publishing application from Microsoft. This program helps you easily create, customize, and publish materials such as newsletters, brochures, flyers, catalogs, and Web sites. It is very neat and tidy and improves presentation. People who work in the advertising industry might find publisher very useful because it is very quick and easy to use.

Sen’s Theorem: Overview and Analysis

Sen’s Theorem: Overview and Analysis Table of Contents (Jump to) 1. Introduction 2. A Review of Sen’s Theorem 3. The Rise of New Interpretation 4. Merits of the New Interpretation 5. Conclusion References 1. Introduction The Sen’s theorem has an important impact on the decision and social choice theory. In the Nobel Prize lecture of 1998, Sen said that discovering the societal decision rules will be the main objective of the choice theory. However, Sen found it is difficult to achieve this objective in his paper of â€Å"Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal† (Sen, 1970a, b, 1976c). Sen’s theorem states that it is impossible to achieve the minimal aspect of liberalism when it is combined with the Pareto condition. According to the theorem of Sen, it seems that there is a fundamental conflict between the Pareto welfare concepts and the liberalism. After this argument, there is a pooling of studies that focus on the individual rights and there are also studies that find new interpretation for the theorem of Sen. According to Saari and his collaborators, the cyclic decision outcomes established by Sens theorem describe a transitional, dysfunctional state of society. This essay will mainly explain how this interpretation arises and discuss its merits relative to the original interpretation offered by Sen. The essay will be structured as follow: in the second session, the essay will briefly introduce the Sen’s Theorem regarding to the conflicting results between Pareto Optimal and Liberalism. Examples will also be used to better illustrate the choice decisions. In the third session, the essay will how and why there will be new interpretations of the theorem of Sen. Particularly, the essay will base its argument on the research results of Saari and his collaborators. In the fourth session, the essay will discuss the merits of the new interpretation compared with the interpretation by Sen himself. In the last session, a brief conclusion will be made based on the analysis in the previous se ssion. 2. A Review of Sen’s Theorem The Sens impossibility of a paretian libertarian theorem or Sens paradox Paratian liberal states that weak Pareto criterion and liberalism may have conflicts on the fundamental level, which indicated that the Pareto criterion is flawed. On one hand, it shows that the Pareto criteria only consider aspects of difference in efficiency among relevant states while ignoring the individual utility conflicts arising because of these states. On the other hand, the theorem also shows the in addition to considering some reasonable internal conditions, one also needs to consider issues such as liberalism for social order decision making. According to Sen, there are some choices that are purely of personal nature, such as the state (x) means everything else in the society as ÃŽ ©, when A is sleeping supine, state (y) means everything else in society as ÃŽ ©, when A is sleeping prostrate. If A has a preference of y than x, while many others in the society prefer the opposite, then it can be consid ered that social choice between x and y is a purely personal thing, because A is the only a real person that is related to the choice while other people are just nosy person. It can also be considered that one can choose one such a collective choice rule where As preference should be accurately reflected by social preferences in this purely personal nature choices (Sen, 1970). Based on this point, Sen emphasizes that people should pay attention to the study of individual rights and other issues affecting the social choice order and decision making. The new welfare economics and welfare economics research before the new welfare economics are consciously or unconsciously avoid these problems. Sen (1970) found that the Pareto criterion is incompatible with liberalism. Pareto optimality is used by the economists and other social scientists to measure the efficiency of society, which is also the the most common and widespread, even the only indicator. It refers to such a state that we are good as it gets, no one can make an additional welfare without compromising the welfare of others. And the principles of individual freedom are the relentless pursuit of mankind, both of which are on the intuition that people can fully accept and understand. However, Sens theorem shows that these two attractive standards are contradictory and cannot be simultaneously true. 3. The Rise of New Interpretation There are three assumptions that Sen’s theorem is based on and the realistic of these assumptions will be one reason why there will be new interpretations for the Sen’s theorem. First, the essay will briefly introduce the assumptions related to the Sen’s theorem. An unrestricted area principle; The Pareto principle; The minimum principles of liberalism (ML), which states society should give at least two people the right to choose between at least a pair of social status. If one thinks that A better than B, then society should not interfere and should agree with the preference. With Sens words, if you want sleeping supine and did not want to sleep prostrate, the society should agree with it. However, Sen also prove that for two or more people in the society, there exist no social choice functions that simultaneously satisfy these above three conditions because there will be the similar results of cyclical Condorcet voting paradox revealed by Arrow Impossibility Theorem when Pareto optimal is in combination with a minimum principle of liberalism. Sen’s theorem on freedom of the Pareto impossibility can be accurately described as: there does not exist the collective decision rule that meets the following conditions. The first condition is a sort of rational conditions. The sort is reflexive, relevance, and the preference relation is not circulating. Reflexive means for any choice x has xRx, which indicates that any choice is at least as good as its own. Relevance means for any two options, there must be xRy or yRx or both. The second condition is weak Pareto criterion. For any choice of x and y, if everyone i think xPiy, then the society also thinks that xPy. The third condition is the minimal liberalism. In this condition, there are two non-empty, disjoint subsets L1 and L2, two different options for the (a, b) and (c, d), if everyone in L1 considers a is better than b, then the society also thinks that a is better than b; if everyone in L1 thinks that b is better than a, then b is also better than a for the society. Similarly, if everyone in L2 believes that c is better than d, then the society also thinks that c is better than d; if everyone in L2 thinks d is better than c, then the society t hinks also that d is better than c. The two groups were decisive on the choice between the two groups. Anyone is free to do what he likes to do, which means there are some choices that are entirely personal, personal preferences should not be affected by some other people. How to walk out of Sens paradox? Mueller has proposed two solutions in the â€Å"public choice theory . One is to let the Pareto principle in some cases to comply with the right to liberalism. The other is through Pareto transactions. As Mueller noted, the matrix is similar to game theory, for example a state in the famous prisoners dilemma, and the Pareto inferior results are due to the independent exercise of each person in his own right, regardless of the damage to others such externalities. The results of Sen’s theorem are established mainly through examples. There are no rigorous proofs on the results why there will be inconsistency of minimal liberalism and Pareto conditions. The results are basically based on the assumption that there are conflicts between the Pareto Conditions and the Minimal Liberalism. There are questions keep asking whether the assumption is true and what if the cyclic societal rankings are not due to these conditions? In fact, in 1998 and 2001, Saari argues that the real reason of the seminal result of Sen’s theorem is not related to the nature of the Pareto condition and the Minimal Liberalism. The reason is that Pareto conditions and Minimal Liberalism needs the societal rankings to be made over pairs, which dismiss the transitivity of individual preferences. Therefore, it is not the conflicts between societal need and individual rights that undermine the assumption of individual rationality; it is the concentration of pairs that leads to the ignorance of individual rationality. And Saari also made geometric proof on this argument, which provides a new interpretation for the Sen’s theorem. 4. Merits of the New Interpretation There are several advantages of the new interpretation compared to the one that Sen present in the original version. First of all, the theorem carried out by Saari and his collaborates are proved using geometric proof, instead of using only examples and assumptions to derive the final results. In addition, the new interpretation can explain all the examples used by Sen in his prior papers and the new interpretation also supports Sen’s own interpretation that the three conditions in Sen’s theorem force the decisions to be made by ignoring the individual rationality. The new interpretation also thinks that the decision rule also wants to meet the demand in the cyclic preference (Saari 2001; Saari and Petron, 2004). Secondly, the geometric proof of the new interpretations has identified all possible profiles that support any examples of Sen’s model. In addition, Saari and his collaborates have also significantly expanded on earlier observations by providing a new statistical interpretation for Sen’s Theorem. And they also conclude that the cyclic decision outcomes established by Sens theorem describe a transitional, dysfunctional state of society. Thirdly, the new interpretation has pointed a new direction for the movements of individual rights. Compared with the interpretation by Sen, the new interpretation focus more on the intensity minimal liberalism, which will leads to social decision procedures without cyclic outcomes and at the same time satisfy weak Pareto conditions. They pointed out the deeper reason of the ignorance of individual rationality instead of concluding that the reason is because of the inconsistency of the Pareto condition and the Minimal Liberalism. 5. Conclusion As discussed in the previous session, the Sen’s theorem provides a good direction for the research of individual rights. And there are many researchers working on the topic to find new interpretation for the seminal results of Sen’s theory. Saari and his collaborates find that Minimal Liberalism makes some of the information in the society irrelevant. However, depending on that information, individual preferences may or may not be transitive. Therefore, they conclude that Minimal Liberalism makes transitivity information irrelevant and this happens for any possible example of Sen’s cycles. They find a way to solve this problem and the response to this is to modify Minimal Liberalism in a way that is sensitive to transitivity information. They use the Intensity Minimal Liberalism (IML), which is a decisive that agent can impose his preferences only when the choice does not create a strong negative externality for some other agent. And they finally find that there are social decision procedures without cyclic outcomes that satisfy weak Pareto and IML, which provides a new interpretation for the Sen’s theorem. The new interpretation finds a more appropriate way to proof Sen’s theorem and expends Sen’s theorem in several aspects. References Li, I. and D.G. Saari 2008. ‘Sen’s theorem: geometric proof, new interpretations’, Social Choice and Welfare 31: 393-413. Focus especially on pages 393-401. Petron, A and D.G. Saari 2006. `Negative externalities and Sens liberalism theorem, Economic Theory 28: 265-281. Read Sections 1 to 4. Saari, D. G. (1995). Basic Geometry of Voting, Springer-Verlag, New York Saari, D. G. (1998). Connecting and resolving Sen’s and Arrow’s Theorems, Social Choice Welfare 15, 239-261 Saari, D. G. (2001). Decisions and Elections; Explaining the Unexpected, Cambridge University Press, New York Saari, D. G., and Petron, A. (2004). (April), Negative Externalities and Sen’s Liberalism Theorem, IMBS working papers, University of California, Irvine, to appear in Economic Theory,June, 2006. Saari, D. G. and Sieberg, K. (2001). The sum of the parts can violate the whole, American Political Science Review 95, 415-433. Salles, M. (1997). On Modelling Individual Rights: Some Conceptual Issues: Discussion; p 129-133 in Social Choice Re-examined, Vol. 2; Ed. by K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura,St Martin’s Press New York. Sen, A. K. (1966). A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions, Econometrica, 34(2), 491-09. Sen, A. K. (1970a). Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Holden-Day, San Francisco. Sen, A. K. (1970b). The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal, The journal of Political Economy, 78(1), 152-57. Sen, A. K. (1976). Liberty, Unanimity and Rights, Economica 43(171), 217-45. Sen, A. K., Liberty and Social Choice, Journal of Philosophy, 80(1), 5-28. Sen, A. K. (1992) Minimal Liberty, Economica, 59 (234), 139-60. Sen, A. K. (1999) The possibility of social choice. The American Economic Review 89 (3), 349-378

Reflections on Nagarjuna’s The Refutation of Criticism (Vigrahavyavartani) :: Nagarjuna Essays

Reflections on Nagarjuna’s The Refutation of Criticism (Vigrahavyavartani) ABSTRACT: In verse nine of the Vigrahavyavartani, Nagarjuna gives a defense of his skepticism by insisting that he makes no proposition (pratijna) concerning the nature of reality. B. K. Matilal has argued that this position is not an untenable one for a skeptic to hold, using as an explanatory model Searle’s distinction between a propositional and an illocutionary negation. The argument runs that Nagarjuna does not refute rival philosophical positions by simply refuting whatever positive claims those positions might make, but rather he refuses the very act of making an assertion. From this kind of illocutionary negation, however, a certain paradoxicality arises: for in the negating the act of assertion, the skeptic is barred from asserting his or her own position, for under this condition, if he or she asserts that position, it is falsified! I want to argue that there are certain senses in which it seems that Nagarjuna’s resorting to the illocution we find in the Vigra havyavartani may not have been necessary for the maintenance of his skeptical position, for he has recourse to prasanga counter-arguments which can always offset the metaphysical and epistemological claims of the Hindu and Buddhist philosophers whom he confronts. There are also places in the Karika itself, where certain pramanas seem to be employed, that give one the impression that this kind of skepticism and the pramanas are only inimical to one another insofar as the latter may lead to the metaphysical, essentialist extremes criticized by the Buddhists. Nagarjuna’s illocution in this light seems an attempt to radicalize his difference from a developing Nyaya extensionalist theory of the pramanas, a theory in which the Buddhists and the Naiyayikas are closer than anywhere else. In verse nine of his Vigrahavyavartani, Nagarjuna thematizes an objection to his skeptical "middle" position in the following way. If all things were devoid of an intrinsic nature, there would, nevertheless, be an absence of intrinsic nature (yadi sarvadharmanam svabhava na bhavet tatrani nihsvabhava bhavet). But then, even this name "absence of intrinsic nature" would not be possible (tatra nihsvabhava ity evam namani na bhavet). Why? Because there is no name whatever without an object (nama hinirvastukam kimcid api nasti). Thus since the name exists (namasadbhavat), there is an intrinsic nature of the things; and since they have an intrinsic nature, all things are non-void (asunya). (1) In the famous twenty-ninth verse, Nagarjuna, addressing the objection, writes:

Descartes, Leibniz, And Spinoza Essay -- essays research papers

If these great thinkers (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were to discuss instead the soul’s connection to the body, what might each say (both on his own behalf and in response to the other)? Would they find any places where they might agree? If not, why not? (These are, after all, smart guys!)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Though this sort of meeting would strike me as a debate with as furiously disparate and uncompromising ideals as one would find in a meeting of Andrew Weil, Jerry Falwell, and David Duke, I expect that the philosophers would find some surprisingly common ground. Descartes, the Christian outcast, Spinoza, the Jewish outcast, and Leibniz, the creative mathematician all acknowledge that what we know better than anything is the mind. Given this, we can deduce that any knowledge we acquire of our perceived bodies does not necessarily relate to some external reality, physical substance, or biological bodies. However, from this point on the three scholars meander off in separate definitive arguments.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Descartes reasons in â€Å"Meditations on the First Philosophy: In Which the Existence of God and the Distinction Between Mind and Body are Demonstrated† that mind and body are real, extant, and separate products of God. He does this by suggesting that if the body were not real, then God would be deceiving us, which is unlikely from a perfect god. He also arrives at a proof for his mind’s existence by postulating the famous cogito, ...

Much Ado About Nothing Essay: The Character of Don John -- Much Ado Ab

The Character of Don John in Much Ado About Nothing  Ã‚     Ã‚   William Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy in which he uses one of his more peculiar villains. The antagonist in this play is Don John, the bastard brother of Don Pedro. In this paper I will discuss the role of Don John as well as his motives and the character himself. I will also delve into Shakespeare's use of Don John as the antagonist. I will be comparing Don John to other characters in the play as well as to other villains in Shakespeare's works. While Don John does not spend a great deal of time on the stage in Much Ado About Nothing, he still plays a vital role in the plot of the play. The plan that he sets in motion is one of the two main stories within the play (the battle of wit between Beatrice and Benedict being the other). Don John, as I mentioned before, is the bastard brother of Don Pedro. His illegitimacy is one of the factors that makes him altogether vile and hateful. He is bitter because of his social standing and at the beginning of the play is directly bitter and jealous of Claudio. We might find some reasoning into why Don John hates Claudio by what he says when speaking to Barrachio and Conrade in the first act. When finding out about Don Pedro's plot to help Claudio win the hand of Hero, Don John says: "Come, come; let us thither: this may prove food to my displeasure. That young start up hath all the glory of my overthrow: if I can cross him any way, I bless myself every way." (Shakespeare 16) While Shakespeare never actually distinguishes specific motives for Don John's hatred of Claudio, we can infer one of two possibilities from his use of the word "overthrow". The overthrow he refers to could be a military overthr... ... in the face to Don John. The character Don John is not a very complicated character. He is not a character that gets very much time on the stage either. You cannot deny, however, that he is one of the most evil and twisted characters that Shakespeare has ever come up with. I think that Don John is the perfect villain in every aspect of the word. Works Cited Hunter, G.K.  Ã‚   William Shakespeare: The Later Comedies.  Ã‚   Great Brittian:   Ã‚  Langman's Green & Co. Ltd.  Ã‚   1962 Shakespeare, William.  Ã‚   Much Ado About Nothing.  Ã‚   Cambridge:  Ã‚   At the University Press   Ã‚   1962 Shakespeare, William.  Ã‚   Hamlet.  Ã‚   New York and London:  Ã‚   W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.  Ã‚   1963 Shkespeare, William.  Ã‚   Much Ado About Nothing.  Ã‚   New Haven:  Ã‚   Yale University Press  Ã‚   1917 Spivack, Bernard.  Ã‚   Shakespeare and the Allegory of Evil.  Ã‚   New York:  Ã‚   Columbia University Press  Ã‚   1958

In time of war, actions not morally acceptable become acceptable Essay

We live in an imperfect world where human interactions breeds frictions occasioned by participation of different individuals in matters of society, economics and even religious inclinations of the different masses. Human beings have voluntarily or involuntarily found themselves in different areas of life due to their races or ideologies and consequently have had to act in line with a certain set of belief. Therefore this has bred differences in how a different society approaches issues relating to both governance and interaction and lack of consensus among individuals and sometimes groups within and without have led to violence. This violence is sometimes political and involves a set of organized military groups fighting for a certain goal that is usually political in nature. War is rough on the participants and mostly on innocent civilians caught in the middle of the chaos. The questions that strongly begs a just answer is â€Å"can there be a just war. † Hedge (2002) claims that in essence there is not much difference between the U S government and Alqueda arguing that despite what motives drives them to violence both the outcome is death of innocent civilians. However there are those who feel that to agree with Hedge would be to deny that there cannot be moral reasons to go to war and that the presuppositions behind the just war theory are fallacious and misguiding. In this regard it would be equal to agreeing that no reason should drive a country to wage war on another or even that terror groups must be allowed to exploit the weakness of less able nations in order to bring terror to perceived enemies. In my opinion such a stand is untenable and unrealistic and a way to avoid taking responsibility in accordance to the natural laws of justice that guarantees freedom and rights of individuals (Zupan, 2004). It is therefore important to highlight that it is hypocritical to deny that a party might be justified to wage war to counter similar aggressiveness or as way of stopping gross violations against fellow human beings. All human beings have a right to life is a clearly accepted fact and anything that contravenes such a fact would ordinarily be considered immoral and against fundamental pillars of justice, rights and freedoms. However whereby a war has been taken as to being justified then a waiver is taken in order to grant the involved parties the right to take away the lives of those perceived to be the enemies. In addition the loss of civilian life in the course of such a war is simply taken to be the costs of bringing such changes as necessitate that war. Hedge actually accuses Washington of stooping so low as to use death as a means of expressing its dissatisfaction with certain issues (Hedge, 2002). In other wars certain groups of people who previously viewed as morally incorrect might receive a change of perceptions simply because they direct their atrocities to the perceived enemy. In this regard the common phrase that an enemy of my enemy is my enemy becomes true. There are those who would argue for the sovereignty of nations and that a state has a right from external interference. In ordinary times such a status applies and there are clear efforts to observe and even promote the status quo. However in times of war sovereign borders are breached and this usually leads to the removal of leadership or occupation of such state. Hedge (2002) however seeks to point out that while he is not a war supporter, that it is sometimes important to use force to counter a force that is much immoral as compared to the countering force. It is therefore important then that we must understand that we have a moral responsibility to take care not to ignore or indeed breach the fundamental rights of citizens as we engage in war. Hedges, C. (2002). War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Anchor books. Zupan, D. (2004). War, Morality and Autonomy. London: Ashgate publishings.

Psychological and Sociological Insights Essay

This essay will address how psychological and sociological insights help nurses to understand health lifestyles by exploring life sciences, focusing on people who engage in smoking and how they seem to override the fact that they are putting their health at risk. In addition to this I will also be highlighting statistics and briefly discussing the health complications that develop from smoking. Consequently, it is important for nurses to understand how people function, more so when they are healthy so we know how to help when a health problem arises. Functioning as a person involves social and psychological aspects, as well as having functioning body systems. Over the decades there have been many different explanations on how people function, this essay will discuss psychological and sociological ideas that will give nurses an understanding of people’s behaviour, thoughts, feelings and lifestyles. For this purpose, this essay will be reflecting on the psychological perspective s of social learning theory, unrealistic optimism and the health model locus of health. Secondly, it shall be discussing the sociological perspectives of socio-class and low-incomes and socialisation to discover why people may start to smoke and why people continue to smoke knowing the risks involved. Ironically, as recent as the 1940’s smoking was considered harmless and the overall attitude of people was that smoking relieved tension but research has since confirmed that smoking causes many diseases detrimental to one’s health such as cancer, cardiovascular and lung diseases. Smoking is a greater cause of death and disability than any single disease, says the World Health Organisation (WHO). According to WHO, smoking is responsible for approximately five million deaths worldwide every year (WHO, 2012). Presently, in the United Kingdom smoking is the leading cause of death with 120,000 people dying annually due to smoking related diseases and costs the National Health Service (NHS) the sum of  £2.7 billion to provide health care for people with smoking related illnesses (Department of Health, 1998). Even so, people still continue to engage in this life threatening behaviour despite knowing the dangers and risks that it involves. Therefore, as nurses we need to consider how addictive smoking is to some individuals (Rana, Upton. 2009) this can influence the health choices people make. Health psychologists attempt to predict how people make choices about their lifestyles. According to Albert Bandura’s theory (1965,1991) on social learning suggested that learning can occur not only by association, reward and habitation but also by observing others behaviour and by imitating it and does not require the individual to be actively involved in the learning process (Barker, 2007) this is referred to as vicarious learning through modelling. The social learning perspective implies that smoking behaviour is learned by modelling and social influences (Rana, Upton, 2009). Statistically, most smokers start smoking as teenagers (Payne, Walker 1996) and children are more likely to smoke if their parents smoke and their parent’s attitude to smoking is an important factor (Action on Smoking and health, 2011).Valente et al (2005) suggests that one of the main reasons for adolescents to start to smoke is the influence of peers and siblings and parents generally become less influential ( Rana, Upton, 2009). Therefore leads us on to social influence, this refers to the way in which people’s behaviour is influenced by the presence and actions of others (Cialdini, 2004). Despite knowing the health risks of smoking, young people still conform to engage in smoking as the number of young people who smoke remains the same (ASH, 2012). Some will manage to quit but a good percentage will endure to smoke for decades, this increases the risk substantially in developing illness and early death (Department of Health, 1998) even though 7 out of 10 adults say that they would like to give up but continue to smoke, the reasons for continuing they say it is a way of coping with stress, a way of relaxing and women seem to be anxious with putting on excess weight. Understanding when and why the individual started to smoke and the reasons for continuing can help the nurse understand more about the individual’s lifestyle. The nurse can then offer support and advice on how the individual can use different strategies enabling them to overcome these hurdles and promote the health benefits of quitting smoking. In an attempt to explain why individuals continue to damage their health by continuing to smoke, Weinstein (1983, 1984) suggests that the reasons people often engage in unhealthy behaviour is due to the individuals perceptions of risk and susceptibility are inaccurate (Rana, Upton. 2009). A study carried out by Weinstein, he asked subjects to examine a list of health problems and to rate their chances of developing the problem, compared to others of the same age and sex. The outcome of this study showed that most of the subjects believed that they were less likely to develop the health problem. Weinstein called this phenomenon ‘unrealistic optimism’, as he argued that not everyone can be less likely to develop an illness (Ogden, 2007). He claims that individuals ignore their own health risks and smokers convince themselves that they are not at risk of developing illnesses, as much as other smokers. Many smokers have the belief that if there is not a problem now there will not be one in the future and their lifestyle continues knowing the risks. This model can be used in nursing to help the nurse to understand the attitudes of most smokers. Understanding the attitudes the nurse can help promote healthy lifestyle choices by providing the individual appropriate information about the impact that smoking has on their health. Reasons for continuing this lifestyle can be explained using the Health Locus of Control (HLC), people’s attribu tions about health and illness. For instance, Wallaston & Wallaston 1982, states that internal control is when individuals tend to regard the control of their health there responsibility by believing that their health and recovery of illness are dependent on their own actions (Payne, Walker. 1996) or they believe it is down to fate or luck this could relate to people that continues to smoke. Whereas external control is when the individuals believes their health is not controllable by them and is controlled by powerful others, for example; doctors and nurses and are less likely to take their own action and believe that it is the responsibility of external factors. The health locus of control has been shown to relate to whether the individual changes their behaviour towards smoking. External individuals who wish to give up smoking will generally be more complying to change their lifestyle and seek advice and help from health care professionals more so than internal individuals (Odgen, 2007). Nurses can apply this model to people with external HLC who are considering giving up smoking by providing the appropriate information enabling the individual to seek help from the available sources and work alongside them to devise a programme in which will benefit them (Rana, Upton. 2009). The sociology perspectives look at the social world and differences in lifestyles that can influence the individual’s health. Studies have shown that inequalities in health is not just down to ones behaviour but displays a connection to the social and economics and environment all of which influence peoples lifestyles (Taylor, Field. 2007). The Black Report 1980 inevitably found that poor health and earlier deaths are the magnitude to socio-economic inequalities (Denney, Earle. 2010). The socio economic classes are still divided as the prevalence of smoking regular among people who work manual jobs are more than likely to smoke more so than people that work in non manual jobs ( Action on Smoking and Health, ASH. 2012), (appendices 1.1). Smoking prevalence is an important element of the differences in the state of health and death rates between social classes and remains high among men and women in the lower socio economic group (Richardson, 2001). As nurses we need to be aware of the social world in which we practice, understanding the differences in how people live will determine the lifestyle choices they make (Marsh, Keating. 2006). Nurses must consider the factors underlying the socio economic differences in smoking such as occupational status, income, education, housing and environment. It may be considered that the decision to smoke is influenced by social factors and social circumstances of the individual. The behaviour of smoking is often linked to poverty and illness, as the poorest family group- single parents have the highest rates of smoking an 80% chance of being smoker if you fall into this social class (Crosier, unknown). Marsh and McKay (1994) reported that people who are living on low income are most likely to smoke; least able to quit smoking; least able to afford smoking; most likely to suffer increased hardship due to the expenditure on tobacco (Richardson, 2001). The debate about women and smoking illustrates this well. Despite over the past decade, the number of people smoking has declined but only has shown a small decrease in women smoking, yet the differentiation between the working and middle class women has increased (Nettleton, 2006). Research into women in low income families with young children, smoke as it is a means of a coping strategy to help deal with the multiple demands that are placed upon them. Graham (1987) found that mothers on low incomes used smoking as a coping strategy that could provide ‘time out’. The mothers where all aware of the health risks associated with smoking so providing more education was unlikely to have an impact (Scambler, 2008). The nurse would, however, have to address that the added pressure for the mothers on low incomes, to give up smoking may cause more stress and could lead to additional health implications, as a result this could have a negative impact on their lives (Bury, Gabe. 2004).It is the nurses role to address this issue by providing appropriate support and information on alternative ways of coping with stress, whilst retaining their autonomy (Naidoo, Wills. 2004). Socialization is more often than not the main reason for people to start smoking, as 82% of adult smokers started smoking in their teenage years (ASH, 2012), as adolescences are more than likely to indulge in risk taking behaviour such as smoking, to create a sense of belonging to a peer group (Clarke, 2010), this soon becomes a regular daily smoking pattern, sustained by nicotine addiction but is reinforced by social norms (Ewles, 2005). It is a nurse’s role to help change of attitudes of the younger society by continuing to provide education on the addiction of nicotine and health risks of smoking and prevention of disease. The Department of Health brought about The White paper: Smoking Kills (1998) as they recognised the health issues of smoking and that one of their main concern was the rises in children /adolescences smoking, Appendices 1.2. They have put in measures to reduce smoking among the younger generation by minimilising tobacco adverts in shops, proof of age cards were introduced and the age to purchase tobacco has risen from 16 to 18 years old. Although in general we are living healthier and longer lives due to the overall improvements that has been made throughout the past decades there is still room for improvement in health inequalities within the top and bottom ends of the social scale (Clarke, 2010). To conclude, nurses need to understand the principles of psychological and sociological insights to health lifestyles. As a result, this helps the nurse understand the reasons why people choose to take up smoking and continue to smoke, leading a lifestyle that is detrimental to their health. From exploring these life sciences the nurse will have a better understanding of the different attitudes, health beliefs, thoughts and feelings that differ within the socio-economic classes, this gives the nurse the ability to deliver the holistic approach relevant to the individuals needs. As nurses by providing care to people, more often than not we do not share the same values and beliefs and may not agree with the life choices people have made but gaining an insight to their lifestyle will in turn enable us to provide the appropriate support, information and treatment. Nurses are obliged to promote good health behaviour but this does not always work towards smoking, many people will take the advice and may try to quit smoking (Appendices 1.3) but due to demands of life some have a tendency to start again but we must realise as nurses, smoking is an addiction and is not easy to give up it, so we have to respect the individuals lifestyle choices without being judgemental.