Superstition Or Reasons for Believing in God
Step on a crack break your mother’s back, the number 13, the number 17, breaking a mirror, cross paths with a black cat. These are some of the most common superstitions among people in the world. As a child, you would hear your mother tell you not to walk under a ladder, or when you say something terrible that it might happen, so you better knock on wood. Children grew up hearing these superstitions never aware of where they came from or consciously thinking about doing it before they did. Avoiding the number 13, or being scared that something on Friday the 13th would happen simply became a part of life. Some people went along with it not giving it too much thought, but others took it to an extreme. Superstitions were never seen as something that could inflict harm onto someone’s life, but if we take a closer look we realize superstition controls your day to day life and becomes similar to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder(OCD).
Superstitious behavior has become common amongst those who have uncertainties about life and who need something to comfort them in predicting a good outcome. People like to put a sense of control on things that are too chaotic or too big for them to control. Superstitious behavior has become linked with OCD, giving people a sense of external control. ‘People like to have the idea that they can make sense of the world and predict what will happen to them, notes social psychologist Carey Morewedge, an associate professor of marketing at Boston University.”Superstitions serve as external explanations for seemingly causal events’ or as a possible way to reduce the odds that something bad will happen.” Although the number of people who believe in superstitions is not great, the 2014 Harris Interactive/Statista survey found that 25% of people in just the United States say that they are somewhat or very superstitious. Concluding that ¼ of Americans are affected by superstitions and in jeopardy of them controlling their lives or getting to the point of severe OCD. People who reach these conditions risk isolation and not experiencing the normal lives that people live around them. They withdraw themselves from the life they had before and lose experiences that would benefit their life for the better.
The majority of people who are extreme when it comes to superstitions aren’t familiar with how the superstition came about. The most common superstition of the number 13 came from an association with the biblical last supper, where Jesus Christ dinned with his 12 disciples just before being arrested and crucified. This gave the idea that having 13 people at a table was bad luck then expanding to 13 being an unlucky number. Many others came from religious beliefs, others came from cultural beliefs like knocking on wood. The ancient Indo Europeans believed that trees were home to various spirits and that touching a tree would invoke the protection of the spirit within. People often can see that superstitions are just an old wives tale’ or legends and stories from centuries ago. These superstitions might not make sense, but the intuitive appeal to be able to have control over what happens is too great that it’s hard for them to shake them.
Superstitious thinking crosses over into a dangerous lifestyle when the superstition becomes greater than taking care of the person’s health. When a person needs surgery, but they think a certain day, time is bad, or that something will happen to them if they get the surgery due to some superstition, the person is putting themselves in harm’s way. The reason why people become so obsessed with superstitions is due to confirmation bias. Once something good happens, superstitions are often maintained by confirmation bias where the person tends to confirm what they already believe and block out anything that contradicts that. Similarly to people who suffer from OCD they cannot go upon their day without acting upon the superstition to be reinforced that nothing bad will happen. The most common example of this is during sports games. You’re watching the civil war game and eating hot wings, and the Beavers win for the first time in years. You then come to believe in the luck of power that hot wings have and overlook all the other times you’ve eaten hot wings. This example, however, is much simpler than someone who would take something of luck to the extreme.
Most people who do have superstitions do not take it to the extent of where it becomes like OCD and a risk to their life. In some cases superstitions have been said to be beneficial for people with anxiety who feel that they can’t control things because it gives them some reassurance and self-control. They relieve anxiety about the unknown and gives people a sense of control over their lives. When the absence of control of a significant result creates anxiety, it can be maintained by the emotional benefit of superstitions even if people on a rational level know that there is no magic.”Superstitions have ‘evolved’ to produce a false sense of having control over outer conditions, and reduce anxiety. This is also why superstitions are prevalent in conditions of absence of confidence, insecurity, fear, and threat.
Superstitious beliefs or behaviors that come from fear, uncertainty, and unfamiliar events help people overcome such situations. However when taken to a greater extent people become obsessed with these superstitions that actually cause then to isolate themselves from society and set them back in life. Superstitions became a ‘comfort’ to people who struggle with anxiety of not being able to control future events or fear of harmful things occurring. What someone can’t see who becomes obsessed with superstitions is that is starts to control their lives and inflicts an unhealthy life. These beliefs people thought were just cultural tales have become more dangerous to humanity than we would have ever expected.
The Sand Creek Massacre
The sand creek massacre was an extremely sad event that will not be forgotten. It took place in the late fall of 1864, in southeast Colorado near Sand creek, hence the name. The leading factor of this event was that the settlers wanted the land that simply wasn’t theirs. Over time, they had been trying to push the natives onto less, and much worse land. It all began when Native Americans were blamed when a white family was murdered. Enraged, John Evans ordered the citizens to murder the unfriendly Native Americans and send the harmless ones to safer areas. In 1851, a treaty was passed saying that Sand Creek belonged to the Cheyenne tribe, so black Kettle was under the impression that they were safe.
They had many defense mechanisms out and ready, though. However, once the desire for land amongst the new Americans grew, a conflict began to arise. An organization named the Colorado Volunteers was sent to gather at the edge of Sand creek. The people who lived there did not want to fight, so they held up an an American flag as a symbol of peace. That did not stop Colonel John Chivington, their leader, from invading. Chivington was brutal. He ordered his army to scalp and murder everyone, no matter how old. So that is what they did. Over 400 native American tribesmen were killed consisting of mostly children, the elderly, and women. Back in 1864, they could not defend themselves as well as men, which is why they were targeted. After the massacre, the troops burned down the villages, as if they hadn’t already don enough. They paraded out of Sand Creek, carrying limbs as if they were trophies. Chivington even showed off his scalp collection to the publish with pride. Many of the victims were on their knees desperately begging for mercy, which the soldiers ignored completely.
The Sand creek Massacre is so unique because of many reasons. First, it triggered many years of fighting in the area of the Great Plains. Also, despite the fact that the massacre was an incredibly gruesome and memorable event, somehow Americans have managed to forget all about it over the years. A reason for that may be that he battle occurred during the civil war, which everyone associates with the east coast. When you think of the civil war, you do not think of the westward expansion, which was actually a crucial factor. Lastly, it is being rediscovered.
Reason for Distinct Differences Between the Sexes & Their Ability to Live Ideal & Rounded Lives
Due to the economic practices and societal standards of our current time, it is impossible to maintain a happy life enriched with a healthy balance of everything one wishes to do, especially as a woman. Referring to this level of attainment as “having it all,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, a very successful woman within the foreign-policy branch of the government, relays experiences from both her own life and from the lives of other similarly high-ranked women whose acquaintances she has made in her years as a high-up person in the government. Time and time again, Slaughter found her own difficulties of juggling the raising of a family while maintaining the level of commitment required her from her career shared by other women in similar positions.
Women in particular cannot, in this present time, “have it all” because women in particular struggle to “have it all,” often finding it difficult to reconcile the expectations of motherhood with career-related pressures. At least at the same time Slaughter clarifies, such a feat is reserved purely for superwomen.Slaughter argues the reason for such distinct differences between the sexes and their ability to live ideal and rounded lives is the way women have been treated and how society has molded them into what they are now. From the continued denial of equal votes pre-1920 to the birth of the kitchen-bound homemaker in the 1950s, women have consistently been viewed as inferior to men.
Although ending by saying why does Slaughter focus so heavily on what is applicable only to her? There is a very slim margin of women who do want such high-status and pressure jobs and fewer still who attain it so why generalize an entire half of the population based solely on her own limited/ unique/rare experience.
With the continual acceptance and normalization of LGBTQ people, will this struggle of balancing family and work move more onto their shoulders and resultantly off of straight women? There is a certain undisputed fact that it is immensely difficult, nigh impossible, in fact, to maintain a healthy, happy life while simultaneously balancing family and careers. This difficulty is doubly impacted by high-leveled jobs. The professions that demand weighty decisions that affect many. Such decisions and consequences require time and are stressful, something families share. Why does Slaughter directly link being successful to having it all? Many would disagree in that their idea of living a successful life is simply being able to appreciate what they have. Why do you need a crazy government powerful job to be.
Reasons for Buying a House
Reasons for buying a house
Many people, including the middle class, aspire to become homeowners. Although the reasons for buying are many, the future owner will decide whether to rent the house or live there. Other individuals carry out this operation for investment purposes: after a redevelopment, the house is often resold more expensive according to the price of real estate reveals the website advertisements lesclesdumidi.com for the purchase of a property.
House. Buy a house to live in or rent?
You can occupy a house on an ad hoc basis (second home) or primarily. The latter option is often mandatory when state aid, or housing assistance schemes such as ELPs or the zero plus loan , have contributed to the financing of the purchase. The future owner of the house may also decide to make it his principal residence for tax reasons, such as tax credits. Finally, the purchase decision is sometimes taken after a crush for a house for sale, as on www.lesclesdumidi.com , especially due to financial constraints, or for family or professional reasons.Regarding the choice of a second home, it is mainly due to the desire to regularly spend his holidays in a specific place or to retire there. Those who opt for a purchase for rental purposes are usually already owners or they have a right to housing such as the provision of a residence of function, or housing allowances.
In this case, the purchase is mainly made in anticipation of retirement or simply compensate for a possible disappearance of these small financial benefits. In the meantime, the rent collected will be a supplement to income and in some cases it is used to repay a credit, often real estate, or to be placed in savings.What are the advantages and disadvantages of renting and occupying the house purchased?Being the owner of your main home makes you feel “at home”: you are free to choose the decoration, to embark on a redevelopment and work … etc. And then, we get rid of the fear inherent in the status of tenant not to see his renewed lease, once it has come to term. Moreover, in the long term, this operation participates in the preparation of the retirement characterized by a decline in revenues mentions the real estate.
Choosing to rent is more about financial than psychological concerns. It is not by chance that we speak of rental investment. Money recovered from your rented house or apartment rental heremay, in the medium or long term, set up an investment fund to launch a business or serve as a personal contribution to a new real estate purchase. However, to optimize the operation, precautions must be taken: ensure that the location of the house attracts, calculate the costs of renting, study the profitability of the project in relation to the contribution and duration of repayment of credit, develop and furnish his house to please buyers with the installation of an electric heating, for example … The rigor is therefore required if we want the rental pays.
Analysis of the Reasons for the Nation to Collapse
There are many theories as to why nations fail but Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson (2012) give a different perspective and believe that prosperity and poverty conditions of a nation are not due to their geography, cultures or leadership; rather, it is the nature of institutions they possess that matters most. These institutions can be inclusive economic and political institutions or extractive economic and political institutions. In addition, we can see radical approaches from the dependency school of thought, which “believes that the role of external factors (is responsible) in the creation and maintenance of weak states” (p.79).
The post 9/11 period changed the security dynamics of the entire world. With the emergence of new spheres of influence on a global scale, 9/11 raised numerous questions about the complexities of our time and the ways to govern new insecurities. Fragile states, trans-national movements, and geopolitical recasting breed unprecedented threats to traditional norms of political life. Among these threats, state fragility and failure are portrayed as bogeymen. Dealing with state failure resembles a swinging pendulum between an agenda of necessity and an agenda of choice for policy makers and states themselves. The decision to choose the best available option is always linked to its cost, whether political or economic.
Looking into the past, the history of international relations is witness to the rise and fall of political systems, whether traced in city-states, empires, or in contemporary nation-states whose constant rise and fall are causes and consequences of various intrastate and inter-state factors. It is important to understand the conventional wisdom that political decay is a substantive process that emerges because of a lack of political order, mainly characterized as ineffective institutional capacities in a nascent or malfunctioning aging state. The institutions of malfunctioning aging states are too deeply fractured to develop a mature and viable political system. This means the malfunctioning aging process, festered with prolonged chronic political ailment, causes the decay of a political system and potential breakout of the state. Both strong and at risk societies are always sensitive to essential ingredients that can provide good health to function smoothly. Political order is a core ingredient that is needed to sustain the system to work efficiently. For any political system, the absence of order in a state means a higher level of fracturedness and patent weak bounds within the state’s political institutions. As a matter of truth, every state is susceptible to political decay. Surely the topology of a state, meaning its nature, type and category determines the level of susceptibility.
Yet the weak states are troubled with a wide range o domestic and external security issues that are mainly driven by fragile nationhood, a lack of governable, higher levels of political corruption, the rise of sub-level ethnic-nationalism, sectarian and inter-relations clashes, weak economic growth, the absence of accountability in the system, lawless borders, geopolitical challenges, and other forms of socioeconomic and political fears. Consequently, for the citizen of fragile states, the meanings of the social contract gradually diminish and the weak government holds an increasingly ineffective control over its territory.
Every state and its political system experiences a constant input (new demands and support for demand) and output (decisions or policies) processes; the domestic state’s structure tries to synchronize demands and realities. A successful synchronization between input and output processes reflects maturity and the viability of the system and its resiliency to cope with the persistent change processes, while a desynchronized process in the system tends to lead towards alteration, failure or decay.
In recent times, political discourse refers to the notion of failure or decay in connection to nation-states and their domestic systems. The political systems in Afghanistan, Congo, Haiti, Myanmar,Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and many more states in Africa, Asia and Latin America abound with vivid examples of political decay and state failure. Interestingly, in recent times the issues of state fragility and failure emanate from the weakness of states in the developing regions of the world, while ost of the developing states embarked on the journey of nation building and development as a result of a massive wave of decolonization process following the Second World War. Subsequently, most of the political leadership in newly independent societies has faced troubling issues of effective authority and govern-ability in how to exercise power over their (newly shaped) territories given the incomplete and highly invariable administrative system from colonial legacy.
For centuries, politics has been in transition, but in recent decades, the pace of transition has been accelerated. During these transitions political societies are continuously witnessing the birth, growth, peak, senescence and decay of societies, either due to God-made or man made reasons. The difference between earlier epochs of transitions and today’s political activities reside in a bit of different settings of time. For instance, compared to the past, today’s societies cannot ignore a state decaying in isolation. The scale of the ramifications is much higher than ever before.
To answer the questions helped to understand the role, duties and responsibilities of states in the contemporary time period. The hypothetical discussions based on endogenous and exogenous factors allowed the address of challenges and conditionality of contemporary weak, but piviot states in terms of state fragility. Looking back and comparing and contrasting to the colonial episodes of weak states to contemporary era gave some explanations. First being that most of today’s weak and fragile states are grappling with the number of domestic and regional issues that are actually remnants of being colonial past. The formation of nations and the states through surgical processes in various parts of the Third World immediately become a source of conflicts. Second, feeble socioeconomic conditions due to bad governance and wrong policies turned into a poverty trap for the population. Third, during the Cold War period many weak states were governed by dictators and for geostrategic reasons and positions of states at the crossroads of major powers interests, the global powers maintained the status quo through allowing dictators to rule these countries. This resulted over the period of time in support of undemocratic forces to strengthen the roots of praetorianism and led to an asymmetrical growth of institutions that lack checks and balances.
The Confessions: St. Augustine’s Views on God and Reason
Augustine’s conversion: God is above reason
Most people know St. Augustine of Hippo as one of the Great Latin Doctors of the Church due to his numerous works explaining and defending the Church against the numerous heresies at the time. Less people know who Augustine was before his bishophood and consequent sainthood – someone who was “so great a sinner”, to directly quote his autobiographical The Confessions. Augustine’s stance of Christianity zigzagged throughout his pre-conversion years, from being genuinely curious about it to outright dismissing it by going against St. Monica, his Christian mother, and participating in the Manichean sect for nine years.
One of the consistent traits of Augustine since his childhood days is his intellectual inquisitiveness and search for the reason in everything he sought. Augustine points out in The Confessions rather early on that he was searching for the Truth, and that he engaged himself in anything he saw could possess this Truth. Augustine had an interest and natural talent in rhetoric, the act of persuasion to convince others that what you are saying is true, and went to study in Carthage to pursue this study. Augustine’s stint with the Manicheans was also in search for Truth, as he was promised that Mani, the sect’s leader, would be able to give him the answers to his questions. When both rhetoric and Manichaeism disappointed Augustine, the former in how it morally corrupted people’s perception of truth, and the latter in how empty the promised truth was, Augustine did not hesitate to abandon them and continue in his search. It was only through St. Ambrose, another Great Doctor of the Church, who helped Augustine become more welcoming of the Catholic faith when the bishop explained it to him with reason.
Everything about Augustine’s search for Truth was driven by reason, by logic and argumentation, which is why it is ironic that Augustine’s moment of conversion happens when Augustine lets go of reason. Augustine states in The Confessions that he was moved by the story about Saint Anthony the Great, a rich Egyptian who, after hearing a reading that he felt was directed at him, gave up all his belongings to the poor and become a hermit in the desert. Augustine was tormented and angry, questioning his inability and unwillingness to commit just as St. Anthony did, before crying out to the Lord. In this moment, Augustine lets his emotions get the better of him, not his intellect, and it is only in this moment that God reaches out to him through the voice of a calling child, as Augustine recounted. It is only in this moment that Augustine finally saw the Truth he had been looking for so long – God.
Augustine returns to using his intellect and reason after the conversion, this time for the Catholic faith. More unreasonable events happen in Augustine’s life, most prominently his sudden ordination as priesthood and then bishop, but the saint was unwavering in his belief. If Augustine had doubted the faith in any period of his life, he would not have hesitated to leave it like he did with the Manicheans before. He never did.
Intrapersonal Conflict: Reasons, Effects, and Ways to Solve
It is a sort of contention that is mental including the person’s considerations, qualities, standards and feelings. Relational clash may come in various scales, from the easier unremarkable ones like choosing whether or not to go natural for lunch to ones that can influence significant choices, for example, picking a vocation way. Besides, this sort of contention can be very hard to deal with if you think that it’s difficult to decode your internal battles. It prompts fretfulness and uneasiness or can even reason melancholy. In such events, it is best to look for an approach to relinquish the tension through speaking with other individuals. In the end, when you wind up out of the circumstance, you can turn out to be more enabled as a man. In this manner, the experience evoked a constructive change which will help you in your very own development. Intrapersonal Conflict is the piece of human life, at each point people confront intrapersonal clashes amongst ought to and needs. Strife emerges when any sort of choice should be taken, be it essential of immaterial. Each time a choice should be taken, ought to and need weigh on us, in view of which we take choice.
Intrapersonal clashes can, some of the time, devastatingly affect the psychological cosmetics, a few people independent of ought to are totally determined by need, they have confidence in accepting circumstances for what they are thus are spared of the intrapersonal strife, other people who comprehend the significance of ought to frequently end up hesitant and confounded or begin contingent upon others to take choices for them. Basic leadership is extreme now and again, every activity has results, positive or negative, anyway it is critical to acknowledge one’s choice and live by them.
Fundamental drivers with respect to intrapersonal strife are:
- Frustration at work: In such circumstance employees don’t care to work legitimately in the organization. They take rest during working hours.
- Goal strife: The specialists demonstrate disappointment towards the shared objectives of association.
- Role struggle: The specialists move toward becoming differ in the matter of part. Lower level specialists need to go more elevated amount by the assistance of intrapersonal strife.
Resolving Intrapersonal conflicts
- Approach the other with deference: At times, it is hard to approach someone else with deference when we are in strife with that individual. On the off chance that we would like to determine that contention, should buckle down, looking past the present challenges and see the individual as another person simply like us, with needs simply like our own. We have to perceive the mankind in the other and stretch out to the next the regard that we would wish others to reach out to us.
- Tuning in to somebody: When we are occupied with relational clash we tend not to tune in to the next individual. We are so bustling expressing our own perspective. Here, we have to go to completely, tune in to the next individual’s substance thoughts, needs, recommendations, tune in to their emotions, and attempt to see the circumstance from their perspective. Having tuned in until the point when we achieve that level of comprehension, we can improve the correspondence between us by to express our comprehension of the other individual’s perspective.
- Express your own perspectives, needs, sentiments: Since you have demonstrated regard for the other individual, listened painstakingly to their necessities and emotions, and communicated your endeavors to comprehend their perspective, it is the ideal opportunity for you to put your case. Express your reason quickly, maintain a strategic distance from stacked (words that passionate or convey judgments), be straightforward and say what you mean, reveal your sentiments.
Were There Any Reasons to Kill Julius Caesar?
I believe the conspirators in Julius Caesar were incorrect and immoral in their killing of Caesar. Caesar’s death ultimately caused more problems than it did fix anything. After his death, a fight broke out between Cassius and Brutus and Mark Antony and his forces. Brutus and Cassius were the ones who wanted Caesar dead and in the end they both end up dead as well. The whole plan definitely did not go as it was suppose to. The conspirators were wrong to kill Caesar because he did nothing wrong that would give them a reason to kill him, his death just created more issues for everyone, and he was actually a good leader and did good things for Rome.
Caesar never really gave anyone a reason to want him murdered. Cassius wanted Caesar dead mainly out of jealousy. Brutus was basically manipulated into thinking that Caesar was going to become too powerful. Caesar did gain a lot of power in the republic, but he never said he was going to completely take over nor did he have plans to do so. Mark Antony said, “You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; and, sure, he is an honourable man.” Caesar was offered more power and a crown but he did not accept it which shows that he never had intentions of taking over. The conspirators believed he just put on a show for the crowd to make them like him by not accepting this power and to make them think he was humble. I believe Caesar did not just do this for the crowd and that he was a good leader and never wanting anything bad for Rome. The conspirators really had no actual reason for wanting Caesar dead, but you could tell they were jealous of the power he had. Many people in Rome liked Caesar and had no problem with him. This shows that he was a good leader and killing him was not the best thing for the people and country, which is what they should be thinking about. Mark Antony even spoke at Caesar’s funeral and tried to explain the conspirators reasons for killing him and what they feared would happen. The crowd was still angry and this showed even the people did not believe he was gaining to much power or that he would use his power in the wrong way. The conspirators were only thinking about themselves and their position in the whole situation. It would be different if Caesar was a bad leader and was trying to gain all that power for other reasons, but he was not. The conspirators had to have realized he did not have any bad intentions. Caesar did not deserve to die because of the jealousy of the conspirators.
Caesar’s death was followed by many problems that could have easily been avoided if he was not killed. For example, after his death Brutus and Cassius got an army to fight Mark Antony’s army. They both wanted control of Rome and this caused them to fight. This battle ended in the death of Brutus and Cassius, who were the main ones that planned the death of Caesar in the first place. After the battle, Antony and Octavius rule Rome which is not what was the plan was supposed to even be. This could have all been avoided if they never killed Caesar. His death only led to the death of others. The conspirators did not really completely think through everything that could have happened once they killed Caesar. They did not consider the problems that could occur when they kill him. They were only thinking about themselves and not about what would happen to Rome and how it would affect everyone else. The conspirators should have really thought about everything that could occur when they killed their leader. His death was not worth what followed it. His death really did nothing good for Rome. If they would have never killed Caesar, they would not be dead as well and Caesar could have done more good things for Rome. Caesar said, “A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.” Caesar’s death was not a “necessary end” and it should not have happened the way it did. Caesar should have been able to live out his life the way he was supposed to and many things could have been avoided.
Caesar was a good leader for Rome for many years. He did many good things in these years. Caesar was very intelligent and had good leadership skills. Caesar said, “As I love the name of honour more than I fear death.” Caesar did everything for Rome and was not selfish like the conspirators. He led many battles and tried his best in all of them. I believe Caesar never had intentions to do evil or selfish things in Rome. I do not think Caesar having what the conspirators viewed as “too much power” would have been such a bad thing since he was a good leader. The conspirators believed he would get all this power and they did not know how he would treat it. I really do not think he would use it to do bad things. Caesar never gave the conspirators a reason to believe he would use this power in a bad way. They just envied this power and did not like that he was gaining it. However, Caesar would not have all this power if people in Rome did not think he deserved it. At his funeral and when he was murdered, the crowd there was very angry. This shows the people also liked him and also believed he was a good leader. The conspirators should not have killed a good leader like Caesar just out of jealousy.
In conclusion, there were not many logical reasons the conspirators had to kill Caesar. There are more reasons why he should not have been killed than there are why he should have. He never did anything wrong to the conspirators or anything wrong to Rome. His death created problems that could have easily been avoided if the conspirators were not jealous of him and his power. Caesar did mostly good things for Rome and definitely did not deserve what happened to him. The conspirators were very wrong to do this to Caesar and just made problems for themselves, including some of their own deaths.
Reasons for the Failure of Smes
Failure has been deﬁned differently by several studies. Some studies determine failing as bankruptcy. The bankruptcy criterion for failure states that they occur when the ﬁrm is legally collapse and ceases operations with a resulting loss to creditors. However, if failure is deﬁned as bankruptcy, it would be considered from a very narrow perspective and for example many businesses that still operate although they lose money will be excluded from the analysis. Cannon argues a broader conceptualization and deﬁned failure as ‘deviation from expected and desired result’. When determine in this way, failing may occur when the SMEs underperforms in terms of critical processes or when desired targets are not achieved. Failure represents one of the most difﬁcult, complex and yet valuable learning experiences that SMEs will ever have the fortune to engage in. Thus, venture failing is an important concept to understand in business, both in terms of its causes and consequences for the individual SMEs, organizations and society at large.
Success and failure of a business can be explained both by individual, organizational and environmental factors. Internal causes are those decisions, actions that are under management’s control while external causes are events that are outside of management’s control. In most cases, a complex mixture of causes contributes to business failure. Among the internal factors, managerial incompetence or poor management comes ﬁrst. Poor management is referred to the failing of the management to be able to ensure that problems are identiﬁed promptly and the correct solutions applied, so as to give the company the best possible change of survival and growth.
Overconﬁdence and excessive risk taking tendency is also seen among the failing causes. On the other hand, many businesses fail due to poor ﬁnancial planning, namely getting into cash ﬂow binds, being too easy with credits, spending money on the wrong things. Thus, business failure is connected to the manager’s decisions and behaviors, and the way he conducts his enterprise.
To conclude, some other scholars seem to suggest that businesses fail rather due to external factors such as inadequate economic circumstances. Government policies, lack of ﬁnancial resources or other misfortunates. There are also some studies in the literature that analyze the association between the age of the company and business failure. Those studies have established that younger ﬁrms fail more often due to internal causes (e.g. operational management problems, inexperienced and incompetent management, different management failures) while mature company fail largely by reason of environment, competition and demand. Immature ﬁrms fail due more to their lack of experience or limited resources. More recently, successful young company often fail due to a lack of ﬁnancial resources and explained this situation by the mistakes made by the inexperienced managers rather than the managerial incompetence. On the other hand, mature ﬁrms are more likely to fail by reason of changes in their environment which their rigid routines are unable to adjust to. Some researches state in their study that the likelihood of failure due to internal and external reasons is very high in all age groups of businesses.