Arizona State University Social Psychology Topic Proposal Paper Please help me write a topic proposal It’s for social psychology I want it on prosocial beh

Arizona State University Social Psychology Topic Proposal Paper Please help me write a topic proposal It’s for social psychology I want it on prosocial behavior but my professor said it needs to more specific and I can’t think of a good research topic that’s specific and using prosocial behavior in social psychology. It should be a sentence or 2. thank you Please follow the instructions and please read only the highlights part in “Excerpt from the
48 Laws of Power” file.
➢ Microsoft Word document with at least 600 words
➢ Number the answers to the questions without retyping the questions
There are 3 separate situations presented in this handout yet they are indeed linked. Fill in
where “Your Answer” is shown.
A. Transgression of the Law
1. Who was right, the Roman consul or the military engineer of Athens in determining the proper battering
ram for the siege? Explain.
Your Answer
2. Can you envision both the behaviors and interactions between the Roman consul and the military
engineer (excluding the punishment) happening in today’s times? On the other hand, are their behaviors and
interactions limited to that point in time?
Your Answer
3. If you were the military engineer, how would you have gone about convincing the Roman consul that your
battering ram was the better one for the siege?
Your Answer
B. Observance of the Law
4. Do marketers today use similar tactics such as those used by Michaelangelo to get the approval
of Soderni? Give examples. Is Michaelangelo being deceitful? Why or why not?
Your Answer
C. Keys to Power
5. What in your estimation would have been the response of the mayor if he found out that the two columns
never touched the ceiling after two months’ time? After finding this out, if the mayor passed Sir Christopher
Wren on the street that day, would he say anything to Sir Christopher Wren and if so, then what would you
imagine that he would say?
Your Answer
From a marketing perspective, identify the overall main point of the three readings and condense it into
two sentences.
THE Sl’I.TA
,\D
THE VIZIER
A vizier had served his
master for some thirty
years and was known
and admired for his
loyalty, truthfulness,
and devotion to God.
His honesty, however,
had made him many
enemies in the court,
who spread stories of
his duplicity and
perfidy. They worked
on the sultan day in
and day out until he too
came to distrust the
innocent vizier and
finally ordered the man
who had served him so
well to be put to death.
In this realm, those
condemned to death
were tied up and
thrown into the pen
where the sultan kept
his fiercest hunting
dogs. The dogs would
promptly tear the
victim to pieces.
Before being thrown to
the dogs, however, the
vizier asked for one last
request. “I would like
ten days’ respite,” he
said, “so that I can pay
my debts, collect any
money due to me,
return items that people
have put in my care,
and share out my goods
among the members of
my family and my children and appoint a
guardian for them. ”
After receiving a guarantee that the vizier
would not try to escape,
the sultan granted this
request.
The vizier hurried
home, collected one
hundred gold pieces,
then paid a visit to the
huntsman who looked
after the sultan:S
70
I
LAW 9
TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW
In 131 B.C.,the Roman consul Publius Crassus Dives Mucianus, laying
siege to the Greek town of Pergamus, found himself in need of a battering
ram to force through the town’s walls. He had seen a couple of hefty ship’s
masts in a shipyard in Athens a few days before, and he ordered that the
larger of these be sent to him immediately. The military engineer in Athens
who received the order felt certain that the consul really wanted the
smaller of the masts. He argued endlessly with the soldiers who delivered
the request: The smaller mast, he told them, was much better suited to the
task. And indeed it would be easier to transport.
The soldiers warned the engineer that their master was not a man to
argue with, but he insisted that the smaller mast would be the only one that
would work with a machine that he was constructing to go with it. He drew
diagram after diagram, and went so far as to say that he was the expert and
they had no clue what they were talking about. The soldiers knew their
leader and at last convinced the engineer that it would be better to swallow
his expertise and obey.
After they left, though, the engineer thought about it some more. What
was the point, he asked himself, in obeying an order that would lead to failure? And so he sent the smaller mast, confident that the consul would see
how much more effective it was and reward him justly.
When the smaller mast arrived, Mucianus asked his soldiers for an explanation. They described to him how the engineer had argued endlessly
for the smaller mast, but had finally promised to send the larger one. Mucianus went into a rage. He could not concentrate on the siege, or consider
the importance of breaching the walls before the town received reinforcements. All he could think about was the impudent engineer, whom he ordered to be brought to him immediately.
Arriving a few days later, the engineer gladly explained to the consul,
one more time, the reasons for the smaller mast. He went on and on, using
the same arguments he had made with the soldiers. He said it was wise to
listen to experts in these matters, and if the attack was only tried with the
battering ram he had sent, the consul would not regret it. Mucianus let him
finish, then had him stripped naked before_the soldiers and flogged and
scourged with rods until he died.
Interpretation
The engineer, whose name has not been recorded by history, had spent his
life designing masts and pillars, and was respected as the finest engineer in
a city that had excelled in the science. He knew that he was right. A smaller
ram would allow more speed and carry more force. Larger is not necessarily better. Of course the consul would see his logic, and would eventUally
understand that science is neutral and reason superior. How could the consul possibly persist in his ignorance if the engineer showed him detailed diagrams and explained the theories behind his advice?
The military engineer was the quintessence of the Arguer, a type
found everywhere among us. The Arguer does not understand that words
are never neutral, and that by arguing with a superior he impugns the intelligence of one more powerful than he. He also has no awareness of the person he is dealing with. Since each man believes that he is right, and words
will rarely convince him otherwise, the arguer’s reasoning falls on deaf
ears. When cornered, he only argues more, digging his own grave. Once
he has made the other person feel insecure and inferior in his beliefs, the
eloquence of Socrates could not save the situation.
It is not simply a question of avoiding an argument with those who
stand above you. We all believe we are masters in the realm of opinions
and reasoning. You must be careful, then: Learn to demonstrate the correctness of your ideaSindirectly.
OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW
In 1502, in Florence, Italy, an enormous block of marble stood in the
works department of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore. It had once been
a magnificent piece of raw stone, but an unskillful sculptor had mistakenly
bored a hole through it where there should have been a figure’s legs, generally mutilating it. Piero Soderini, Florence’s mayor, had contemplated
trying to save the block by commissioning Leonardo da Vmci to work on
it, or some other master, but had given up, since everyone agreed that the
stone had been ruined. So, despite the money that had been wasted on it, it
gathered dust in the dark halls of the church.
This was where things stood until some Florentine friends of the great
Michelangelo decided to write to the artist, then living in Rome. He alone,
they said, could do something with the marble, which was still magnificent
raw material. Michelangelo traveled to Florence, examined the stone, and
came to the conclusion that he could in fact carve a fine figure from it, by
adapting the pose to the way the rock had been mutilated. Soderini argued
that this was a waste of time-nobody could salvage such a disaster-but
he finally agreed to let the artist work on it. Michelangelo decided he
would depict a young David, sling in hand.
Weeks later, as Michelangelo was putting the final touches on the
statue, Soderini entered the studio. Fancying himself a bit of a connoisseur,
he/studied the huge work, and told Michelangelo that while he thought it
was magnificent, the nose, he judged, was too big. Michelangelo realized
that Soderini was standing in a place right under the giant figure and did
not have the proper perspective. Without a word, he gestured for Soderini
to follow him up the scaffolding. Reaching the nose, he picked up his
chisel, as well as a bit of marble dust that lay on the planks. With Soderini
just a few feet below him on the scaffolding, Michelangelo started to tap
lightly with the chisel, letting the bits of dust he had gathered in his hand to
fall little by little. He actually did nothing to change the nose, but gave
every appearance of working on it. Mer a few minutes of this charade he
stood aside: “Look at it now.” “I like it better,” replied Soderini, “you’ve
made it come alive.”
dogs. He offered this
man the one hundred
gold pieces and said,
“Let me look after the
dogs for ten days.” The
huntsman agreed, and
for the next ten days the
vizier cared for the
beasts with great attention, grooming them
well and feeding them
handsomely. By the end
of the ten days they
were eating out of his
hand.
On the eleventh day the
vizier was called before
the sultan, the charges
were repeated, and the
sultan watched as the
vizier was tied up and
thrown to the dogs. Yet
when the beasts saw
him, they ran up to him
with wagging tails. They
nibbled affectionately at
his shoulders and
began playing with him.
The sultan and the
other wimesses were
amazed, and the sultan
asked the vizier why the
dogs had spared his
life. The vizier replied,
“[ have looked after
these dogs for ten days.
The sultan has seen the
result for himself [
have looked after you
for thirty years, and
what is the result? [ am
condemned to death on
the strength of accusations brought by my
enemies.” The sultan
blushed with shame.
He not only pardoned
the vizier but gave him
a fine set of clothes and
handed over to him the
men who had slandered
his reputation. The noble
vizier set them free and
continued to treat them
with kindness.
THE SUBTLE RUSE:
THE BOOK OF ARABIC
WISDOM AND GUILE.
THIRTEENTH CENTURY
LAW 9
I
71
THE
WORKS
Interpretation
OF
AMASIS
When Apries had been
deposed in the way I
have described, Amasis
came to the throne. He
belonged to the district
of Sais and was a
native of the town
called Siuph. At first
the Egyptians were
inclined to be contemptuous, and did not
think much of him
because of his humble
and undistinguished
origin; but later on he
cleverly brought them
to heel, without having
recourse to harsh
measures.
Amongst his innumerable treasures, he had a
gold footbath, which he
and his guests used on
occasion to wash their
feet in. This he broke
up, and with the material had a statue made
to one of the gods,
which he then set up in
what he thought the
most suitable spot in
the city. The Egyptians
constantly coming
upon the statue, treated
it with profound reverence, and as soon as
Amasis heard of the
effect it had upon them,
he called a meeting and
revealed the fact that
the deeply revered
statue was once a footbath, which they
washed their feet and
pissed and vomited in.
He went on to say that
his own case was much
the same, in that once
he had been only an
ordinary person and
was now their king; so
that just as they had
come to revere the
transformed footbath,
so they had better pay
72
! LAW 9
Michelangelo knew that by changing the shape of the nose he might ruin
the entire sculpture. Yet Soderini was a patron who prided himself on his
aesthetic judgment. To offend such a man by arguing would not only gain
Michelangelo nothing, it would put future commissions in jeopardy.
Michelangelo was too clever to argue. His solution was to change
Soderini’s perspective (literally bringing him closer to the nose) without
making him realize that this was the cause of his misperception.
Fortunately for posterity, Michelangelo found a way to keep the perfection of the statue intact while at the same time making Soderini believe
he had improved it. Such is the double power of winning through actions
rather than argument: No one is offended, and your point is proven.
KEYS TO POWER
In the realm of power you must learn to judge your moves by their longterm effects on other people. The problem in trying to prove a point or
gain a victory through argument is that in the end you can never be certain
how it affects the people you’re arguing with: They may appear to agree
with you politely, but inside they may res~nt you. Or perhaps something
you said inadvertently even offended them-words have that insidious
ability to be interpreted according to the other person’s mood and insecurities. Even the best argument has no solid foundation, for we have all come
to distrust the slippery nature of words. And days after agreeing with someone, we often revert to our old opinion out of sheer habit.
Understand this: Words are a dime a dozen. Everyone knows that in
the heat of an argument, we will all say anything to support our cause. We
will quote the Bible, refer to unverifiable statistics. Who can be persuaded
by bags of air like that? Action and demonstration are much more powerful and meaningful. They are there, before our eyes, for us to see– “Yes,
now the statue’s nose does look just right.” There are no offensive words,
no possibility of misinterpretation. No one can argue with a demonstrated
proof. As Baltasar Gracian remarks, “The truth is generally seen, rarely
heard.”
Sir Christopher Wren was England’s version of the Renaissance man.
He had mastered the sciences of mathematics, astronomy, physics, and
physiology. Yet during his extremely long career as England’s most celebrated architect he was often told by his patrons to make impractical
changes in his designs. Never once did he argue or offend. He had other
ways of proving his point.
In 1688 Wren designed a magnificent town hall for the city of Westminster. The mayor, however, was not satisfied; in fact he was nervous. He
told Wren he was afraid the second floor was not secure, and that it could
all come crashing down on his office on the first floor. He demanded that
Wren add two stone columns for extra support. Wren, the consummate engineer, knew that these columns would serve no purpose, and that the
t
t
I
ti
I
J
e
]
I
S
11
c
11
I
s
s
t
1
mayor’s fears were baseless. But build them he did, and the mayor was
grateful. It was only years later that workmen on a high scaffold saw that
the columns stopped just short of the ceiling.
They were dummies. But both men got what they wanted: The mayor
could relax, and Wren knew posterity would understand that his original
design worked and the columns were unnecessary.
Thp
nowpr
of rlpmnn~tr::tinO”
“rnr -irlP:::1I
;(1
th~t
unn.-
I”u.., “..u.u
f
…J
,.,4-
h,
hi
tli
p’
hi
TI
H
FI

Purchase answer to see full
attachment