Could you correct my essay? Please, give me suggestions.
The article and the lecture discuss about a personality called "universal risk-taking". While the article reflects the former opinion of psychologists, the lecturer supports the evidence that today psychology is more tolerant towards this kind of personality for different reasons. The following essay attempts to identify contemporary points which are in contrast with the points given by the article written 70 years ago.
First, the reading passage suggests that people with the tendency of endangering themselves and others can be related to a suicide willing. In contrast, the lecturer provides information that people who act in a risky way, truly believe they have adequate skills and experience and they will surely succeed. For example, racing drivers are self-confident and are convinced they will not have an accident.
Second, the reading passage pushes forth the idea that people with a universal risk-taking personality don't have reasons or rewards motivating their dangerous activities. However, the professor observes that there are some chemical and psychological rewards. For example, a jumper from a plane can feel pleasure in the air. In addition, a psychological reason can be the high-level of confidence they acquire.
Finally, the reading passage states that there are people who face risks such as soldiers but endangering their life in a battlefield is their duty. On the other hand, the lecturer claims that all human beings risk their life. For instance, though smokers know that they shouldn't smoke, they keep doing that.
In summary, while the article discusses in a strict way people with a universal risk taking personality, the professor casts doubt on the supporting information analysed in the reading passage, because of all the reasons mentioned above.
The article and the lecture discuss about a personality called "universal risk-taking". While the article reflects the former opinion of psychologists, the lecturer supports the evidence that today psychology is more tolerant towards this kind of personality for different reasons. The following essay attempts to identify contemporary points which are in contrast with the points given by the article written 70 years ago.
First, the reading passage suggests that people with the tendency of endangering themselves and others can be related to a suicide willing. In contrast, the lecturer provides information that people who act in a risky way, truly believe they have adequate skills and experience and they will surely succeed. For example, racing drivers are self-confident and are convinced they will not have an accident.
Second, the reading passage pushes forth the idea that people with a universal risk-taking personality don't have reasons or rewards motivating their dangerous activities. However, the professor observes that there are some chemical and psychological rewards. For example, a jumper from a plane can feel pleasure in the air. In addition, a psychological reason can be the high-level of confidence they acquire.
Finally, the reading passage states that there are people who face risks such as soldiers but endangering their life in a battlefield is their duty. On the other hand, the lecturer claims that all human beings risk their life. For instance, though smokers know that they shouldn't smoke, they keep doing that.
In summary, while the article discusses in a strict way people with a universal risk taking personality, the professor casts doubt on the supporting information analysed in the reading passage, because of all the reasons mentioned above.
