In the speech just before jerome's, the speaker covered some of the same material that jerome was going to use in his speech on golf. instead of letting this throw him, jerome acknowledged the overlap in his introduction. was this a wise thing to do,?

Yes, it was a very wise thing to do. Whenever we create new content that we want to present to the public, we have to acknowledge any other material that might contain similar information to ours. Sometimes, this might happen on purpose, like when we research a topic and we find information in other sources that will enhance our research. In this case, we cite our sources as references.

In the case of Jerome, the overlap was accidental. However, if he is aware of it, it is still a good strategy to acknowledge it for several reasons.

Listeners will be aware of the overlap, so they will be less likely to accuse him of plagiarism (claiming another person’s idea are our own).

They will also be more patient with redundant information, instead of getting bored.

It will show that Jerome cares about the proper acknowledgement of sources of information, so they are more likely to trust the rest of his speech.

Finally, the audience is aware of the fact that Jerome could not have predicted this overlap, so they will appreciate his resourcefulness for having a strategy to work around it.

the 5th amendment is about the justice system

explanation:

there is no double jeopardy

due process

grand jury

and that you can’t incriminate yourself

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.