In “Brainology: Transforming Students’ Motivation to Learn” Carol S. Dweck tells readers that students’ mindsets have “profound effects on their motivation, learning, and school achievement” (1).
Briefly explain the difference between growth and fixed mindsets, and then use specific examples from your own life to illustrate whether you’ve had predominately fixed or growth mindset when it has come to learning in school, work and/or your personal life.
In the introduction, introduce your audience to the “Brainology” article by identifying the title and author and by explaining the difference between fixed and growth mindsets, according to the author.
Include a thesis statement that identifies the kind of mindset you think you’ve predominately had when it comes to learning in school, work and/or your personal life.
In the body of the essay, provide support for your thesis. Provide several vivid examples or one detailed extended example to illustrate how your experiences shaped your mindset.
To develop specific example(s), you could use the following questions to help you generate some ideas: How have your past experiences at school, at home, in your community, or even at work shaped your current mindset about how you approach learning? How have things like race, gender, ethnicity, social class, disability, nationality, and/or religion had an effect on how you perceive and approach obstacles while learning?
Jurors understanding of neuroscientific evidence is based upon whether they make a connection through the aforementioned evidence about the person’s criminal culpability (Kuersten). “Increasing the understanding of the pathology of the brain and the structural insights provided by technologies such as MRI have assisted both prosecution and defense in establishing degrees of harm cause” (Catley & Claydon). When presenting an individual’s criminal liability within the courts, the mental state and capacity of such individual’s brain should include neuroimaging and informative presentations to allow jurors to determine criminal responsibility (Kuersten). Conclusion: Based upon empirical evidence, brain scans should not be permitted in court. Neuroscience within courtrooms has been used for medical evidence or mitigating circumstances to prove that an abnormality had an effect on an individual’s behavior, however it has a lack of validated studies (Gaines). Another issue that brain scans could produce in the courts is how the brain is defined. If the brain is defined as a piece of evidence, the use of electroencephalography could be used to incriminate such individual. Furthermore, if the brain is viewed as a testimony, the defendant has protections against self-incrimination or testifying against themselves (Gaines). Neuroimaging techniques produce pictures of a brain at the point they are being scanned. At a criminal trial, the mental faculties that the individual possessed is at the forefront of concern. Using brain scans inside of the courtroom to determine mental guilt for a crime post-hoc provides little value. Brain scans provide integral parts of understanding the brain and provide causal links between structural or functional abnormalities, but endangers individual liberties within the Criminal Justice System from freedom of thought, invasions of >GET ANSWER