Why We Need Answers – The New Yorker #ask #questions #and #get


#i need answers

#

Why We Need Answers

The human mind is incredibly averse to uncertainty and ambiguity; from an early age. we respond to uncertainty or lack of clarity by spontaneously generating plausible explanations. What s more, we hold on to these invented explanations as having intrinsic value of their own. Once we have them, we don t like to let them go.

In 1972, the psychologist Jerome Kagan posited that uncertainty resolution was one of the foremost determinants of our behavior. When we can t immediately gratify our desire to know, we become highly motivated to reach a concrete explanation. That motivation, in Kagan s conception, lies at the heart of most other common motives: achievement, affiliation, power, and the like. We want to eliminate the distress of the unknown. We want, in other words, to achieve cognitive closure. This term was coined by the social psychologist Arie Kruglanski, who eventually defined it as individuals desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity, a drive for certainty in the face of a less than certain world. When faced with heightened ambiguity and a lack of clear-cut answers, we need to know and as quickly as possible.

In 1994, Kruglanski and Donna Webster introduced a standard way to measure the need for closure, or N.F.C. a forty-two-item scale that looked at the five separate motivational facets that comprised our underlying tendency for clarity and resolution namely, the preference for order, predictability, and decisiveness, discomfort with ambiguity, and closed-mindedness. Taken together, these elements tell us how high our need for closure is at any given point. Heightened need for cognitive closure can bias our choices, change our preferences, and influence our mood. In our rush for definition, we tend to produce fewer hypotheses and search less thoroughly for information. We become more likely to form judgments based on early cues (something known as impressional primacy), and as a result become more prone to anchoring and correspondence biases (using first impressions as anchors for our decisions and not accounting enough for situational variables). And, perversely, we may not even realize how much we are biasing our own judgments.

While the need for closure does vary from person to person some people are higher in baseline N.F.C. than others it is, to a large extent, situationally determined: the more in flux and indeterminate our environment, the more we want to reach some sort of resolution. N.F.C. is heightened under time pressure, with fatigue, with excess environmental noise when a lot of information that is difficult to make sense of is coming at us at the same time and when we feel that we need to give an opinion. It s also directly related to stress. In short, its influence peaks under the circumstances of emergency or crisis.

In 2010, Kruglanski and colleagues looked specifically at the need for cognitive closure as part of the response to terrorism. In a series of five studies, they found that reminders of terrorist attacks elevate N.F.C. increasing the need to develop strong beliefs, form clear-cut impressions, and classify objects and events into sharply defined categories in order to experience certainty and avoid ambiguity. In the central study, American students were shown a seven-minute slide show that either discussed the 9/11 attacks or talked about the advantages of working at Google. They then completed a filler task and had their N.F.C. measured. Participants shown the 9/11 video scored significantly higher on the N.F.C. scale; in short, simply seeing the terrorist film not even being in an actual crisis environment was enough to trigger a heightened need to attain cognitive certainty and resolution.

The researchers also had an opportunity to test their findings in a natural setting. In the two weeks that immediately followed the July, 2005, London-transit bombing, when four explosions killed fifty-six people and injured more than seven hundred, they recruited two groups of just over a hundred participants and had them complete a series of questionnaires. Not only did they find elevated N.F.C. levels, but that need in turn predicted support for counterterrorism policies. The relationship makes a lot of sense. Kruglanski conceptualizes our need for cognitive closure as consisting of two major stages, seizing and freezing. In the first stage, we are driven by urgency, or the need to reach closure quickly: we seize whatever information we can, without necessarily taking the time to verify it as we otherwise would. In the second stage, we are driven by permanence, or the need to preserve that closure for as long as possible: we freeze our knowledge and do what we can to safeguard it. (So, for instance, we support policies or arguments that validate our initial view). And once we ve frozen? Our confidence increases apace.

It s a self-reinforcing loop: we search energetically, but once we ve seized onto an idea we remain crystallized at that point. And if we ve externally committed ourselves to our position by tweeting or posting or speaking? We crystallize our judgment all the more, so as not to appear inconsistent. It s why false rumors start and why they die such hard deaths. It s a dynamic that can have consequences far nastier than a minor media snafu. Kruglanski and the political scientist Uri Bar-Joseph hypothesize that heightened N.F.C. and its concomitant cognitive freezing were in large part responsible for the start of the Yom Kippur War, the October 6, 1973, Israeli intelligence failure where Israel was caught unprepared for a surprise attack from Egypt and Syria. The warning signs were great, they argue, and the evidence ample. But high-placed Israeli intelligence officials exhibited heightened N.F.C. and they froze on the early conventional wisdom that the chances of an attack were quite low and failed to adequately incorporate new signals, blocking off conflicting information as to the attack s imminence.

So are we all doomed to make uncomfortable errors in reporting or fatal errors in intelligence analysis when the stakes are high? Not necessarily. A number of interventions have been shown to lower the N.F.C. imperative, even at those moments when it should be at its highest. Central among them is the fear of invalidity that is, the fear that a mistake will prove personally costly. If we are afraid that what we say or think will come with a severe penalty, we suddenly become much more cautious in our judgments. The more salient that possibility, the more circumspect our thinking.

The reporting that followed the Boston Marathon bombings was rife with error and rumors run amok. For each story (they robbed a 7-Eleven!), a counter-story followed close on its heels (they weren t even in the 7-Eleven). The misinformation plagued professional news outlets just as much as it did the amateur reporting efforts of Reddit and Twitter understandable, if you consider that the circumstances were ideal for heightened need for cognitive closure to kick in. But in the midst of it all, a few calm voices managed to maintain their cool. On NBC, Pete Williams maintained his usual measured composure, ensuring that his stories were verified many times over before they ever appeared on air. On Twitter, Seth Mnookin meticulously reported developments and corrected misinformation.

Maintaining of cool and levelheadedness is not an easy feat, especially in the face of circumstances that urge us all toward some any resolution just to regain a measure of sanity in the middle of ever-increasing uncertainty. But it s not impossible, either. The next time we want to run the race toward closure, to be the first to tweet or post or report, to follow the first thing we hear because it seems so believable, we d do well to consider the lessons of Boston not just the moments when the media world fell to its lowest points but those rare instances when it was able to show what the value of measured reporting really is. The need for cognitive closure is a powerful force. But a need is neither a mandate nor an excuse.

Maria Konnikova is the author of the New York Times best-seller How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes , and she just received her PhD in Psychology from Columbia University.

Photograph by Eric Thayer/The New York Times/Redux.

Maria Konnikova is a contributing writer for newyorker.com, where she writes regularly on psychology and science.


WikiAnswers – Why did Germany not invade Sweden in World War 2


#wikianswers

#

During the invasion of Scandinavia, Sweden kept neutral, but because much of their income was generated by exporting iron, they continued to sell it to Nazi Germany. Sweden would not help Finland fight off the Soviet attack, but 8,000 Swedes volunteered for the Finnish army. Sensing the impending trouble, nearly everyone in the country pitched in to bolster the Swedish defense lines. The meager Swedish army nearly doubled overnight from volunteers and by war�s end tripled from that. Civilians built shelters, scanned the skies for enemy aircraft, donated time and money and made military vehicles and supplies. Germany told Sweden to stay neutral, but “pro-German,” meaning they would have to abide by Germany�s demands. The Swedes would not listen to Germany�s threats and told them if Sweden was invaded they would blow up the iron ore mines. Although Sweden was surrounded by chaotic war, its citizens led relatively normal lives. However, every Swedish family was affected by it because so many civilians were called into the military reserves.

After Germany conquered Denmark and Norway they blockaded Sweden from the outside, forcing Sweden to deal exclusively with Germany. This imposed terrible food and supply shortages, but the resilient Swedes made the best out of a bad situation. They pushed their food production to the limit and used enormous amounts of timber for countless by-products. Censorship was rampant and anti-German and anti-Communist sentiments abounded, which was only compounded when Sweden�s King Gustav V let Germany move their troops across Swedish land. Hitler did not invade Sweden because he did not want to waste valuable troops in Scandinavia when he had other concerns. The Swedes proved their neutrality by not letting Germany use Swedish airspace: when the Germans flew over Sweden to attack Norway, the Swedes fired back with anti-aircraft guns. The Swedish reluctance to bend under German pressure infuriated Hitler, but he had more important things to worry about–the invasion of western Europe.

Hitler did not invade Sweden because Sweden was traditonally a neutral country for over 200 years and Hitler did not want to bother Sweden when he already had Norway, a more strategically located nation.

Germany was already receiving iron ore from Sweeden on a cash and carry basis. Germany also needed a neutral country as a conduit for goods and foreign currency, and a stage for negotiations and an outlet to the world. As bizarre as it sounds, some goods and materials were purchased by neutral 3rd countries from Allied nations (the US for example) and sold to the Germans via Sweeden.

Why should they? The Swedes were willing to trade freely with Germany, offered no great strategic improvement to Germany should they be occupied, and had a military that was of no threat to any of its neighbors.

Contrast this with Russia which had a highly aggressive and expansionist military and political system. Occupation of their territory was Germany’s PRIMARY goal in WWII. Also, Stalin, while willing at times to trade vital materials with Germany was extremely unreliable and would have cut off trade when he thought it would best leverage the Soviet position.

Only nations that posed a threat to Germany, one way or the other, were attacked by the Germans. Despite popular mythology to the contrary, Germany was not on a rampage to take over the world in WWII. They were interested in improving their national security and sought to do this via military means.

Because of its geographic location it was not strategically important, it had no vital resources they wanted to steal and since the Swedes are Nordics the Nazis did not want to eliminate them. Michael Montagne

“since the Swedes are Nordics the Nazis did not want to eliminate them.”

People being Nordic did not stop them invading Norway.

Sweden actually did provide Germany with iron ore throughout most of the war. The Swedes were cooperative with the Germans (while they were still powerful) knowing full well they were at risk of invasion otherwise. As long as they cooperated the germans had no need to launch a costly invasion.

The invasion of Norway was to: Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from any Allied interdiction.

Actually, this question should be in one of the top positions in questions asked. Sweden provided steel to the nazis, the even provided their railways to them when they invaded Norway. There are many documents on the net and documentaries aired on swedish state television regarding the “swedish-nazi” cooperation during WWII. It was not by chance that Sweden was Europes richest nation at the end of WWII. Today, pro-nazi sentiments still exist making Sweden the No.1 country in the world for self-declared nazis pro-capita. they even have their own political party which is allowed to exist despite WWII and despite present and on-going acts of violence and brutality towards non-native/immigrant individuals. Alot is hush-hush and very little is mentioned in the papers. racism is a problem which unfortunately is underplayed. To be factual..there race or neo-nazi related crimes in Stockholm everyday but they are often just reported for the “text-book” crimes that are committed and the fact that the individuals perpetrating these crimes are neo-nazis and in most of the cases are not first-time offenders is simply omitted.

Im half Swedish and have been wondering about that question forever. Sweden did help Norway when they were invaded. They made a sort of underground resistance with Norway. If a German pilot crashed in Sweden then the Swedes would put him in jail, but if an Allied pilot crashed in Sweden they would let him walk about freely. My grandfather says he rembered seeing a few Allied pilots at some parties in Sweden. What I dont get is that why would Sweden help Norway and also provide the Nazis with iron because if they got caught things could go downhill very fast with the Germans.

sweden had really bad with military units during this time but they played it smart. they took almost all of their units and walkt along the danish line so they germans sholud see thet they had many military (witch they didnt have) and when they had walkt along the line they walked like a D after they had walked with the line they walked back over the land and walked beside the line again :). and german got ALOT of iron from sweden and was afraid thet if they got bad with sweden they shold loose the war becaus they hadent enough iron to built weapons for.

The reason Sweden wasnt invaded were because the germans needed their troops elsewhere.

Germany had planned to attack Sweden several times during world war II, last time was in 1944 when they planned to shoot Vi and V2 rockets against Stockholm from Norway.

As the swedish military grew and became stronger Sweden started to say no to German demands and cutting down on the iron ore export.

Ways to contribute:

  1. Improve the answer by adding new information, removing something incorrect, or fixing spelling or grammar. This answer page might need some special editorial work because it was imported from our old FAQ Farm system. ( You can view the removed content in the question history. )
  • Discuss the question or add other comments that do not directly answer “Why did Germany not invade Sweden in World War 2?”


  • What is the best question and answer platform? Why? #sadlier #oxford #vocabulary


    #question and answer sites

    #

    That would be Quora.

    1. Users can communicate with everyone, giving you a wider pool of people to ask.
    2. Quora somehow convinced and manage to regulate it s users in giving a meaningfull and well thought answers.
    3. Quora offers a very wide network of brains, not only relating to one subject but also encompassing almost all topics ever thought of.
    4. I really like their tag line or motto (whatever they call it)

    The best answer to every queation.

    And the makers of Quora really did try their best to portray it.

    649 Views Not for Reproduction Answer requested by Jordan Alexander

  • What are other question-asking websites like Quora?

  • Is there any open source question and answer web platform like Stack Overflow?

  • What is the best answer to the question why ?

  • What is the best app for asking questions and getting answers from people geographically around you?

  • Which is the best theme for a questions and answers platform?

  • What are some open source question answer applications like Quora?

  • What does a good answer on Quora look like? What does it mean to be helpful ?


  • Why didn – t you answer my question? Ask Leo! #answers #to


    #answer my question

    #

    Why didn t you answer my question?

    Why didn t you answer my question?

    That s a fair question. I don t answer all the questions I get, and I also don t respond to all the comments that are posted.

    It s not that I don t want to. I can t. There are simply too many questions coming in every day for me to address each and every one. I do have to prioritize and select those questions I can answer that will also benefit the most people when I post the answer.

    Let me give you some tips that ll help increase the odds.

    How to best get your question answered

    Use the search box at the upper right of every single page. There are over 4,000 articles (that s four thousand ). A significant percentage of the questions I get every day are already answered by one of them.

    Get up to datefirst. Most all solutions assume that everything is up-to-date. That means Windows, your security software, your applications and anything involved at all with whatever problem it is you re experiencing.

    Scan for malwarefirst. A surprisingly large number of my answers begin with run an up-to-date anti-malware scan . You can save time by doing that before you ask.

    Be clear. Sadly I don t know how to put it more clearly myself. If I can t understand your question you will not get an answer.

    Be complete. Provide as much information about your problem as you can:

    • Windows version
    • Software versions
    • Machine make and model
    • The exact steps that caused the problem
    • Exact error message
    • Anything else that might be relevant

    I absolutely realize that you might not know exactly everything that s relevant, but I do need a lot more that it doesn t work to go on.

    And for the other side of the coin:

    Reasons I might not answer your question

    It wasn t in English. Sorry, but I only read English.

    It wasn t clear. I get a surprising number of questions that are, as far as I can tell, nearly unintelligible. I do my best, but if I can t figure out what you re asking or talking about, I can t answer your question. That includes avoiding most netspeak shorthand and l33t speak.

    There wasn t a question. Many questions I get don t actually ask me anything, so there s no need for me to respond. My Hotmail doesn t work is a good example.

    The question is incomplete. I need details to help you operating system, specific error messages, what you were doing, or attempting to do, at the time of the problem you might have been having. While I d love to, I just don t always have the time to ask you lots questions in response to your question to get at what s happening. Why doesn t my Hotmail work? is a classic example.

    The question isn t about technology. I get a lot of geography questions, political questions, and other random things. I even get the occasional personal advice question. None of those are my area of expertise I do questions about computers and technology.

    You mistyped your email address. or you didn t provide one. This happens surprisingly often. If I can t send you email, or my email to you bounces, I have no other way of getting it to you.

    The question asks me to do something questionable, or possibly even illegal. I cannot get your password back, I cannot crack your account or someone else s. I cannot hand out activation codes for anything. All such requests are simply ignored.

    The question is already answered on the site. Actually I try to respond to these with a pointer to the article that answers your question, but when the load gets too heavy, this falls by the wayside also. Use the search function to find the answers that are already here heck, it s typically what I do myself to locate the article I d point you at.

    The question asked in a comment is answered by the very article that the comment is posted on. I ll admit it I just don t get this. There s text near the comment box that says read the article . Yet I get comments posted that are clearly from people who have not, because it s answered by the article. So, I typically ignore these.

    I don t know the answer, or I have nothing substantive to add to the conversation. For submitted questions, I typically do not reply if I don t know the answer. I may put the question into a queue for future research. For comments posted on an existing question, if I have nothing to add, I won t. What s great about comments is that other readers often do.

    About Leo

    Leo A. Notenboom has been playing with computers since he was required to take a programming class in 1976. An 18 year career as a programmer at Microsoft soon followed. After “retiring” in 2001, Leo started Ask Leo! in 2003 as a place for answers to common computer and technical questions. More about Leo .


    Why and how is 42 the answer to life, the universe and


    #what is the answer to life

    #

    Because it is the most ordinary, workaday two digit number in the universe. John Cleese has claimed it to be the unfunniest number.

    Psychologically, it s pleasing as it is even and seems a safe whole number. No nasty fractions or fiddly numbers like three. 42 is four and two, both safe, eve numbers. Indeed, the 4 itself is two times the 2 which makes for a wonderful warm pleasing sensation in the mind when truly appreciated.

    It also features in the two times table, 2 x 21 =42, a plethora of other multiplication tables also hold this property.

    It is also immediately following 41 and preceding 43. I believe that it is the only number to do this. It s also the atomic number of molybdenum which must be wholly relevant and the angle in degrees for which rainbow appears. AND the number of minutes it takes to travel through the Earth if one was to theoretically build a tunnel to the other side.

    On a darker note, in Japanese if the numbers are pronounced separately shi ni which sounds like unto death for this reason the number is unlucky and most likely avoided in any situations where it could be seen as ambiguous. There are also five mentions of the number 42 in the bible, which is just as disheartening. But four mentions by Lewis Carroll, one by coldplay and one by the band Disco biscuits, inexplicably, so it s somewhat rescued.

    It s also the number of rules in Cricket.

    All of this cannot be a mere coincidence. It just can t, the galactic laws of cause and effect just wouldn t allow it and when you tie this all up with the fact that a number of wonderful and contradictory books were written with the number 42 at the centre of them by Douglas Adams. Well, then surely it must have some bearing on the universe?

    55.2k Views View Upvotes Not for Reproduction

    Vishwanath Sarang. Computer Engineer, Analyst, Problem Solver

    According to the novel The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, which was the sequel to the Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy, it is discovered that the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything (possibly slightly distorted) is: What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

    Previously, the designers of the computers had given up, and settled for the question How many roads must a man walk down? . However, the complex biological computer program (also known as the Earth ) which had been calculating the question for millions of years got screwed up when the Golgafrinchans arrived on prehistoric Earth and destroyed the environment.

    So yes, the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything else is 42, because humans have been using the wrong base system for mathematics. That is why mice are the smartest creatures on the planet. If you use base 13 and multiply 6 by 9 you will get the answer 42, which after all is the true base of mathematics in the Universe and used by all intelligent lifeforms, which excludes humans by definition.

    61k Views View Upvotes Not for Reproduction


    Why doesn – t God answer my prayers? #answers #to #chemistry #questions


    #i need a prayer answered

    #

    Why doesn t God answer my prayers?

    Does God really mean it when He says that He will give us what we ask for? Bible texts come to our minds, such as Matthew 7:7, “Ask, and it will be given to you”. Will He really answer when we call? Isaiah 65:24: “Before you call I will answer, while you are still speaking, I will hear.”

    Does God answer prayers?

    Have you ever asked the question, why doesn’t prayer work? Why at times does it appear that God ignores us when we pray to Him. Many have prayed for God to intervene and solve a problem that they are struggling with, but sometimes God‘s apparent answer is silence.

    God knows what’s best
    Even when we feel that God is not answering our prayers, you can always know God is a God of love. The Bible tells us He loves us:

    John 3:16. ‘”For God so LOVED the world”.
    Jeremiah 31:3, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love.”.

    God created us and knows infinitely more than we know. He knows what is best for us, and what would not be good for us. If you have children, when they were very small, sometimes they asked for things that would not be good for them, or would harm them. For good reasons sometimes parents do not always give their children what they ask for, when they ask for it. Parents give them what is best for them.

    It is the same way in our prayers to God. God gives us what is best for us. We are God’s children and He gives us what is best for us, and at a time when it is best for us. Our lives must be right with God before He can answer our prayers.

    Right way
    God has certain conditions that must be met before our prayers can be answered. One of the first, is we feel our need of help from Him. Isaiah 44:3 says, “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground.” The heart must be open to the Spirit’s influence, or God’s blessing cannot be received. One cannot pour water into a cup that is already full.

    Right heart
    If we have cherished sins in our lives, and refuse to give them up, or if we are doing things we should not be doing, and are disobeying Him, we cannot expect Him to answer our prayers. He cannot answer our prayers if we have sins in our lives that are unconfessed or if we are hanging on to cherished sins. Also, if we refuse to forgive others who have wronged us, God cannot hear us. (See Matthew 6:12 and Ephesians 4:32).

    This is not saying you can earn God’s favor to answer your prayers, it will always be Jesus’s blood that makes us worthy; but we do need to do our part if God is going to work in our lives.

    Pray without ceasing
    One of the reasons we feel our prayers are not being answered, is because we stop praying. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 says it best, “pray without ceasing.” Paul is more direct in Philippians 4:6, “In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”

    In reality, we should not be worried so much about if God hears our prayers – He does and He does care. What we should be worried about is if because of temptations, hard times, and trials we get discouraged, and give up praying. In Luke 18:1, Jesus, “spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart.”

    His time, His will
    God is a God of love, and He is interested in every detail of our lives. He hears our prayers, and answers every sincere prayer if we meet His conditions. We must not expect that every answer will be “yes”, since we are sinners and do not always ask what is best for us. Sometimes His answer is “No’ and sometimes it is “wait.” (Hebrew 10:36) We need to end each prayer with, “Not my will but Your will.” Even if we are sincerely doing God’s will, and to the best of our ability, following His will for us, He may see that it is best for us not for Him to say “yes” at this time. We must continue trusting Him, regardless of His answer at the moment.

    God’s timetable is not the same as ours. He knows better than we do when is the best time for our prayers to be answered. (See Hebrews 6 :13-15). God is eternal and does not measure time as we do. 2 Peter 3:8: “Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

    In the story of Abraham, God promised a son to Abraham. But Abraham became impatient when Sarah didn‘t bear him a son, so he took his wife’s servant as his wife. Abraham tried to solve the problem in his own way and the result was disastrous. We are still seeing the results of his mistake today. God eventually answered his prayer at the time when He saw it was best for Abraham.

    For God to give us what we ask for, we must ask “according to His will.” Faith cannot take the place of “asking according to God’s will.” 1 John 5:14, “…if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.” If you do not ask according to God’s will, it is not real faith in God. If God’s answer is “No” we still must be willing to wait patiently, and trust God to answer in his own way and in His timing.

    Trust God, even though it may seem like prayer doesn’t work. Even though it may seem like at the moment He is not near and has abandoned you.

    Isaiah 41:9,10:
    “You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest regions, and said to you, You are my servant, I have chosen you, and have not cast you away. Fear not for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you,
    Yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.”

    If we have faith and sincerely trust God, we will not be concerned as to whether the answer is “wait” or the answer is “no” or “yes.” We must just trust, and wait and see if God in His timing will see fit to answer as we have requested, or perhaps He has something better in mind for us. Remember your prayer should end with “Not my will, Lord, but Your will.” (Luke 22:42). “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” Proverbs 3:5,6.

    Would you like to know how to pray?

    Question Categories


    How Teens Should Answer Why Do You Want to Work Here? #definition


    #answer clothing

    #

    How Teens Should Answer “Why Do You Want to Work Here?”

    Updated June 24, 2016

    Are you prepared to explain why you want to work at a job? One typical question employers ask applicants is: “Why do you want to work here?” They want to know that you understand the job requirements and the company, and that you have a genuine interest in the job.

    Tips for Answering Interview Questions

    When you are new to preparing for a job interview, and don’t have a lot of work experience, there are a few things to keep in mind.

    The first is to do your research. Find out everything you can about the company and position you are applying for. The more familiar you are with the firm and the job requirements, the better prepared you will be to answer questions relating to your interests and abilities.

    Next, practice answering interview questions you are likely to be asked with a friend or family member, or even in front of a mirror. The more practice you get, the more relaxed you will be.

    When you re a teen job seeker looking for your first few jobs, connect your personal interests to the position to show why you re interested. If you are applying for a job in a restaurant, mention your interest in cooking and preparing menus. Fashionistas applying for retail jobs can talk about their interest in accessories. Applying for a job as a camp counselor? Mention your experience babysitting, and your love of helping children learn new things.

    Make sure you dress appropriately for your interview. Clean, neat attire, light on the cologne and accessories. How you present yourself at your interview is important. It shows that you are mature enough to care about the impression you make. Here are more tips for teenagers looking for employment.

    Review these sample answers for teenage job seekers for the interview question Why are you interested in working for our company? then personalize your answer to fit your circumstances and the job you re applying for.

    Sample Answers

    I am interested in working for your company because I am a frequent customer of your store. As a customer, I ve gotten to know your company well and appreciate your products and the environment that you ve created here. It s important for me to work someplace that I admire, and I know that I would be proud to work here.

    I would love to work for your company because I have a passion for clothing and design and I plan to study fashion merchandising in college.

    I try to keep myself up to date with the latest styles and trends. I feel working for you would enable me to put my passion to good use, and allow me to share it with your customers. I am also looking forward to the real world experience I would get from working in your shop.

    The number one reason I am interested in working with your company is because your company works directly with children.

    I love spending time with kids and I think they enjoy spending time with me. Working in your afterschool program would be rewarding and a lot of fun!

    More Teen Job Interview Questions
    Review more job interview questions and answers for teens to be sure that you ace the interview.


    Charity Ratings #why #donate #money #to #charity


    #

    Give Thoughtfully

    CharityWatch. founded 25 years ago as the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP). is America s most independent, assertive charity watchdog. CharityWatch does not merely repeat what a charity reports using simplistic or automated formulas. We dive deep to let you know how efficiently a charity will use your donation to fund the programs you want to support. CharityWatch exposes nonprofit abuses and advocates for your interests as a donor.

    Detailed information about the charities which earn Top-Rated status from CharityWatch is now available to the public.

    Crowdfunding Popularity Continues to Soar Despite Risks to Donors

    Several years ago most people probably had never heard the word crowdfunding Defined as the process of funding a project.

    Multiple Names + Exaggerated Programs = Two Related Charities, But Little Help for Vets or Cancer Relief

    Veterans and cancer are two of the most popular charitable causes to which Americans direct significant donations While these two.

    Costly and Continuous Kars4Kids Ads Disguise Charity s Real Purpose

    Described by many as annoying and by SFGate com as the subject of widespread ubiquitous hate the catchy advertising jingle.

    Reported Charity Salaries May Not Tell the Full Story

    Donors often seek out information on charity executive salaries when considering whether or not to donate to a particular nonprofit.

    “CharityWatch has warned in advance of coming scandals at Feed the Children, Central Asia Institute, and Wounded Warrior Project. “

    “That swirl of cash, intense interest in supporting those returning from the wars, and a lack of long-established organizations to serve as models for best practices have conspired to create what. Daniel Borochoff, the president of CharityWatch, called a ‘minefield’ for potential donors [to veterans charities].”

    The New York Times, 11/04/2016


    Why We Need Answers – The New Yorker #wiki #answers


    #i need answers

    #

    Why We Need Answers

    The human mind is incredibly averse to uncertainty and ambiguity; from an early age. we respond to uncertainty or lack of clarity by spontaneously generating plausible explanations. What s more, we hold on to these invented explanations as having intrinsic value of their own. Once we have them, we don t like to let them go.

    In 1972, the psychologist Jerome Kagan posited that uncertainty resolution was one of the foremost determinants of our behavior. When we can t immediately gratify our desire to know, we become highly motivated to reach a concrete explanation. That motivation, in Kagan s conception, lies at the heart of most other common motives: achievement, affiliation, power, and the like. We want to eliminate the distress of the unknown. We want, in other words, to achieve cognitive closure. This term was coined by the social psychologist Arie Kruglanski, who eventually defined it as individuals desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity, a drive for certainty in the face of a less than certain world. When faced with heightened ambiguity and a lack of clear-cut answers, we need to know and as quickly as possible.

    In 1994, Kruglanski and Donna Webster introduced a standard way to measure the need for closure, or N.F.C. a forty-two-item scale that looked at the five separate motivational facets that comprised our underlying tendency for clarity and resolution namely, the preference for order, predictability, and decisiveness, discomfort with ambiguity, and closed-mindedness. Taken together, these elements tell us how high our need for closure is at any given point. Heightened need for cognitive closure can bias our choices, change our preferences, and influence our mood. In our rush for definition, we tend to produce fewer hypotheses and search less thoroughly for information. We become more likely to form judgments based on early cues (something known as impressional primacy), and as a result become more prone to anchoring and correspondence biases (using first impressions as anchors for our decisions and not accounting enough for situational variables). And, perversely, we may not even realize how much we are biasing our own judgments.

    While the need for closure does vary from person to person some people are higher in baseline N.F.C. than others it is, to a large extent, situationally determined: the more in flux and indeterminate our environment, the more we want to reach some sort of resolution. N.F.C. is heightened under time pressure, with fatigue, with excess environmental noise when a lot of information that is difficult to make sense of is coming at us at the same time and when we feel that we need to give an opinion. It s also directly related to stress. In short, its influence peaks under the circumstances of emergency or crisis.

    In 2010, Kruglanski and colleagues looked specifically at the need for cognitive closure as part of the response to terrorism. In a series of five studies, they found that reminders of terrorist attacks elevate N.F.C. increasing the need to develop strong beliefs, form clear-cut impressions, and classify objects and events into sharply defined categories in order to experience certainty and avoid ambiguity. In the central study, American students were shown a seven-minute slide show that either discussed the 9/11 attacks or talked about the advantages of working at Google. They then completed a filler task and had their N.F.C. measured. Participants shown the 9/11 video scored significantly higher on the N.F.C. scale; in short, simply seeing the terrorist film not even being in an actual crisis environment was enough to trigger a heightened need to attain cognitive certainty and resolution.

    The researchers also had an opportunity to test their findings in a natural setting. In the two weeks that immediately followed the July, 2005, London-transit bombing, when four explosions killed fifty-six people and injured more than seven hundred, they recruited two groups of just over a hundred participants and had them complete a series of questionnaires. Not only did they find elevated N.F.C. levels, but that need in turn predicted support for counterterrorism policies. The relationship makes a lot of sense. Kruglanski conceptualizes our need for cognitive closure as consisting of two major stages, seizing and freezing. In the first stage, we are driven by urgency, or the need to reach closure quickly: we seize whatever information we can, without necessarily taking the time to verify it as we otherwise would. In the second stage, we are driven by permanence, or the need to preserve that closure for as long as possible: we freeze our knowledge and do what we can to safeguard it. (So, for instance, we support policies or arguments that validate our initial view). And once we ve frozen? Our confidence increases apace.

    It s a self-reinforcing loop: we search energetically, but once we ve seized onto an idea we remain crystallized at that point. And if we ve externally committed ourselves to our position by tweeting or posting or speaking? We crystallize our judgment all the more, so as not to appear inconsistent. It s why false rumors start and why they die such hard deaths. It s a dynamic that can have consequences far nastier than a minor media snafu. Kruglanski and the political scientist Uri Bar-Joseph hypothesize that heightened N.F.C. and its concomitant cognitive freezing were in large part responsible for the start of the Yom Kippur War, the October 6, 1973, Israeli intelligence failure where Israel was caught unprepared for a surprise attack from Egypt and Syria. The warning signs were great, they argue, and the evidence ample. But high-placed Israeli intelligence officials exhibited heightened N.F.C. and they froze on the early conventional wisdom that the chances of an attack were quite low and failed to adequately incorporate new signals, blocking off conflicting information as to the attack s imminence.

    So are we all doomed to make uncomfortable errors in reporting or fatal errors in intelligence analysis when the stakes are high? Not necessarily. A number of interventions have been shown to lower the N.F.C. imperative, even at those moments when it should be at its highest. Central among them is the fear of invalidity that is, the fear that a mistake will prove personally costly. If we are afraid that what we say or think will come with a severe penalty, we suddenly become much more cautious in our judgments. The more salient that possibility, the more circumspect our thinking.

    The reporting that followed the Boston Marathon bombings was rife with error and rumors run amok. For each story (they robbed a 7-Eleven!), a counter-story followed close on its heels (they weren t even in the 7-Eleven). The misinformation plagued professional news outlets just as much as it did the amateur reporting efforts of Reddit and Twitter understandable, if you consider that the circumstances were ideal for heightened need for cognitive closure to kick in. But in the midst of it all, a few calm voices managed to maintain their cool. On NBC, Pete Williams maintained his usual measured composure, ensuring that his stories were verified many times over before they ever appeared on air. On Twitter, Seth Mnookin meticulously reported developments and corrected misinformation.

    Maintaining of cool and levelheadedness is not an easy feat, especially in the face of circumstances that urge us all toward some any resolution just to regain a measure of sanity in the middle of ever-increasing uncertainty. But it s not impossible, either. The next time we want to run the race toward closure, to be the first to tweet or post or report, to follow the first thing we hear because it seems so believable, we d do well to consider the lessons of Boston not just the moments when the media world fell to its lowest points but those rare instances when it was able to show what the value of measured reporting really is. The need for cognitive closure is a powerful force. But a need is neither a mandate nor an excuse.

    Maria Konnikova is the author of the New York Times best-seller How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes , and she just received her PhD in Psychology from Columbia University.

    Photograph by Eric Thayer/The New York Times/Redux.

    Maria Konnikova is a contributing writer for newyorker.com, where she writes regularly on psychology and science.


    WikiAnswers – Why did Germany not invade Sweden in World War 2


    #wikianswers

    #

    During the invasion of Scandinavia, Sweden kept neutral, but because much of their income was generated by exporting iron, they continued to sell it to Nazi Germany. Sweden would not help Finland fight off the Soviet attack, but 8,000 Swedes volunteered for the Finnish army. Sensing the impending trouble, nearly everyone in the country pitched in to bolster the Swedish defense lines. The meager Swedish army nearly doubled overnight from volunteers and by war�s end tripled from that. Civilians built shelters, scanned the skies for enemy aircraft, donated time and money and made military vehicles and supplies. Germany told Sweden to stay neutral, but “pro-German,” meaning they would have to abide by Germany�s demands. The Swedes would not listen to Germany�s threats and told them if Sweden was invaded they would blow up the iron ore mines. Although Sweden was surrounded by chaotic war, its citizens led relatively normal lives. However, every Swedish family was affected by it because so many civilians were called into the military reserves.

    After Germany conquered Denmark and Norway they blockaded Sweden from the outside, forcing Sweden to deal exclusively with Germany. This imposed terrible food and supply shortages, but the resilient Swedes made the best out of a bad situation. They pushed their food production to the limit and used enormous amounts of timber for countless by-products. Censorship was rampant and anti-German and anti-Communist sentiments abounded, which was only compounded when Sweden�s King Gustav V let Germany move their troops across Swedish land. Hitler did not invade Sweden because he did not want to waste valuable troops in Scandinavia when he had other concerns. The Swedes proved their neutrality by not letting Germany use Swedish airspace: when the Germans flew over Sweden to attack Norway, the Swedes fired back with anti-aircraft guns. The Swedish reluctance to bend under German pressure infuriated Hitler, but he had more important things to worry about–the invasion of western Europe.

    Hitler did not invade Sweden because Sweden was traditonally a neutral country for over 200 years and Hitler did not want to bother Sweden when he already had Norway, a more strategically located nation.

    Germany was already receiving iron ore from Sweeden on a cash and carry basis. Germany also needed a neutral country as a conduit for goods and foreign currency, and a stage for negotiations and an outlet to the world. As bizarre as it sounds, some goods and materials were purchased by neutral 3rd countries from Allied nations (the US for example) and sold to the Germans via Sweeden.

    Why should they? The Swedes were willing to trade freely with Germany, offered no great strategic improvement to Germany should they be occupied, and had a military that was of no threat to any of its neighbors.

    Contrast this with Russia which had a highly aggressive and expansionist military and political system. Occupation of their territory was Germany’s PRIMARY goal in WWII. Also, Stalin, while willing at times to trade vital materials with Germany was extremely unreliable and would have cut off trade when he thought it would best leverage the Soviet position.

    Only nations that posed a threat to Germany, one way or the other, were attacked by the Germans. Despite popular mythology to the contrary, Germany was not on a rampage to take over the world in WWII. They were interested in improving their national security and sought to do this via military means.

    Because of its geographic location it was not strategically important, it had no vital resources they wanted to steal and since the Swedes are Nordics the Nazis did not want to eliminate them. Michael Montagne

    “since the Swedes are Nordics the Nazis did not want to eliminate them.”

    People being Nordic did not stop them invading Norway.

    Sweden actually did provide Germany with iron ore throughout most of the war. The Swedes were cooperative with the Germans (while they were still powerful) knowing full well they were at risk of invasion otherwise. As long as they cooperated the germans had no need to launch a costly invasion.

    The invasion of Norway was to: Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from any Allied interdiction.

    Actually, this question should be in one of the top positions in questions asked. Sweden provided steel to the nazis, the even provided their railways to them when they invaded Norway. There are many documents on the net and documentaries aired on swedish state television regarding the “swedish-nazi” cooperation during WWII. It was not by chance that Sweden was Europes richest nation at the end of WWII. Today, pro-nazi sentiments still exist making Sweden the No.1 country in the world for self-declared nazis pro-capita. they even have their own political party which is allowed to exist despite WWII and despite present and on-going acts of violence and brutality towards non-native/immigrant individuals. Alot is hush-hush and very little is mentioned in the papers. racism is a problem which unfortunately is underplayed. To be factual..there race or neo-nazi related crimes in Stockholm everyday but they are often just reported for the “text-book” crimes that are committed and the fact that the individuals perpetrating these crimes are neo-nazis and in most of the cases are not first-time offenders is simply omitted.

    Im half Swedish and have been wondering about that question forever. Sweden did help Norway when they were invaded. They made a sort of underground resistance with Norway. If a German pilot crashed in Sweden then the Swedes would put him in jail, but if an Allied pilot crashed in Sweden they would let him walk about freely. My grandfather says he rembered seeing a few Allied pilots at some parties in Sweden. What I dont get is that why would Sweden help Norway and also provide the Nazis with iron because if they got caught things could go downhill very fast with the Germans.

    sweden had really bad with military units during this time but they played it smart. they took almost all of their units and walkt along the danish line so they germans sholud see thet they had many military (witch they didnt have) and when they had walkt along the line they walked like a D after they had walked with the line they walked back over the land and walked beside the line again :). and german got ALOT of iron from sweden and was afraid thet if they got bad with sweden they shold loose the war becaus they hadent enough iron to built weapons for.

    The reason Sweden wasnt invaded were because the germans needed their troops elsewhere.

    Germany had planned to attack Sweden several times during world war II, last time was in 1944 when they planned to shoot Vi and V2 rockets against Stockholm from Norway.

    As the swedish military grew and became stronger Sweden started to say no to German demands and cutting down on the iron ore export.

    Ways to contribute:

    1. Improve the answer by adding new information, removing something incorrect, or fixing spelling or grammar. This answer page might need some special editorial work because it was imported from our old FAQ Farm system. ( You can view the removed content in the question history. )
  • Discuss the question or add other comments that do not directly answer “Why did Germany not invade Sweden in World War 2?”