Rational Choice Theory Essay Example for Free

Rational Choice Theory Essay â€Å"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason. † As seen from Oscar Wilde’s famous quote, rationality is one of the most crucial and controversial subjects in studying human behavior. To study and examine this rationality, numerous scholars have tried to establish their own theories and generalize their explanation with empirical evidences from real world, which ultimately produces so called, the theory of rational choice. Rational Choice Theory is an approach to understand human behavior. The approach has long been the dominant paradigm in economics, but in recent several decades it has become more widely used in other fileds such as Sociology, Political Science, and Anthropology. The main purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of rational choice theory and briefly discuss its basic assumptions, critiques, political implication, and alternative explanations of individual choice mechanism. First of all, historical backgrounds of rational choice theory and its transition from the field of Economics to that of Political Science will be elaborated. Next, various definitions and meanings of the rational choice will be discussed. The basic assumptions of the rational choice approach with political implication will be followed. Several issues raised by rational choice theory will be followed after this discussion. This paper will suggest some of the main criticisms that have been levied against the rational choice approach. Limited empirical validity of rational choice theory and methodological individualism, which reveals innate problematic nature of the theory, will be discussed. Finally, alternative explanations of individual choice mechanism will sum up this discussion. Before elaborating its theoretical discussion, it is necessary to discuss historical backgrounds of rational choice theory. In the article, â€Å"A Genealogy of Rational Choice: Rationalism, Elitism, and Democracy†, Maloy introduces Skinner’s analysis of behaviorism as fundamental background for the discussion of rational choice theory. He argues that, â€Å"Skinner’s analysis deserves the attention of the recent debates around rational choice ecause it calls attention to the ineluctable ideological features of methodological debate† (Maloy 751). According to Maloy, Skinner could â€Å"clarify the sorts of normative force which attach to empirical theories in social sciences by a close textual analysis of some leading contributions to the behaviorist debate†, which ultimately enables the discussion of rational choice to be furthered applied into different fields of study (Maloy 751). Milton Freidman is another crucial figure that provides profound theoretical base for discussing rational choice theory. In â€Å"The Methodology of Positive Economics†, Friedman argues that people and firms make decisions that can maximize their profit under perfect information. He defended rational choice model by arguing that, â€Å"a theory should be judged by its predictive accuracy, not the realism of its assumptions† (Friedman 10). His argument provides theoretical foundations of rational choice theory in Economics, even though it is often criticized by later scholars because of its weak empirical validity and ceteris paribus nature. While rational choice theory has been dominant paradigm in Economics, it has become â€Å"adapted and adjusted in a number of ways to fit† different fields of study such as Political Science; Maloy explains that â€Å"the distinctiveness of the rational choice approach among political scientists consists, in general terms, in the use of economic models to explain and predict political behavior (Maloy 753). Maloy points out three prominent figures, Arrow, Downs, and Olson as rational choice founders especially in the field of political science. According to Maloy, Arrow’s work focuses on so called, â€Å"collective rationality whose underlying purpose is to measure collective choices using standards normally applied to individual choices (Maloy 753). Down uses Arrow’s collective rationality as the starting point of his study and â€Å"aims to articulate a behavior rule for democratic governments so that they could be included in economic theories of general equilibrium, alongside non-state agents like private firms and consumers (Maloy 754). Finally, Olson’s analysis has taken â€Å"the key elements of Arrow’s and Down’s constructs and applied them to a narrower field†; He argues that â€Å"as long as the service provided by a voluntary association is a public good on which an individual can ride-free, there is no incentive actually to take on the costs associated with joining, membership and participation, unless the marginal contribution of that individual appreciably advances the organizational cause† (Maloy 754). All three choice founders’ works have enabled rational choice theory to be in the central place of political discussion in â€Å"the creative and cross-disciplinary ways† (Maloy 755). By arguing that voting results have no specific social meaning, voting has no individual efficacy, and participation in interest group activity has no special individual efficacy, these rational choice founders could criticize unrealistic and irrational assumptions and norms of traditional democratic system and bring rational choice model to the place of political discussion from the field of Economics (Maloy 755). Rational Choice Theory generally starts with consideration of the choice behavior of individual decision-making units, which in economics are often consumers and firms. The theory suggests that the individual decision-making unit is certain larger group such as buyers or sellers in a particular market. Once individual behavior is set up, the analysis generally moves on to examine how individual choices interact to produce outcomes. Then, what does it mean by arguing that a choice is rational? In rational choice theory it means that an agent’s choices reflect the most preferred possible alternative among given opportunities. In other words, choices must reflect utility maximization. Elinor Ostrom defines rational choice theory as a guide to â€Å"understand humans as self-interested, short-term maximizers† in his work, â€Å"A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action† (Ostrom 2). In the article, â€Å"The Political Psychology of Rational Choice Theory†, William H.  Riker also suggests that â€Å"the rational choice model begins with the assumption that actors know what they want and can order their wants transitively† (Riker 25). â€Å"Transitively† here means that an agent of rational choice model can do so called, â€Å"a transitive ordering†; â€Å"To know what one wants requires one to choose the best from among several goals and, failing to attain it, to choose the second best, etc† (Riker 24). This formulation of ordering enables an agent to pursue the best option with given constraints that limit choices he or she can have. In their work, â€Å"Rational Choice Theory†, Coleman and Fararo define rational choice sociologically as they use the term, â€Å"models of purposive action†, rather than rational choice; â€Å"These models rest on the assumption that actors are purposive which means they act in ways that tend to produce beneficial results† (Coleman and Fararo 21). These several definitions point out that choices pursuing utility maximization and outcomes made by these choices are key elements in rational choice theory. Then how is different when rational choice theory is applied into the field of Political Science instead of other fields of study such as Economics and Sociology? According to Riker, Economists’ main concern for rational choice is â€Å"the process and outcomes produced by voluntary exchange, where of course, all participants benefit. On the other hand, â€Å"Politics mainly concerns processes and outcomes produced by group decisions which are practically binding on those who cannot resign from the group. Thus, there can be losers and winners in politics according to Riker’s argument (Riker 24). Although Rational choice theory has long been the dominant paradigm in Economics and other fields of study, it has been subject to vigorous criticism. In â€Å"Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory†, Don Green and Ian Shapiro raises several empirical problems that rational choice theory possess; they â€Å"conclude that a number of methodological deficiencies plague empirical applications of rational choice models. They argue that, â€Å"fundamental and recurrent methodological failings rooted in the universalist aspirations that motivate so much rational choice theorizing† (Freidman 59). According to Green and Shapiro, â€Å"these mistakes stem from a method-driven rather than a problem-driven approach to research, in which practitioners are more eager to vindicate one or another universalist model than to understand and explain actual political outcomes† (Friedman 59). Green and Shapiro’s argument can be summarized into three propositions; â€Å"there is a list of methodological characteristics that are undesirable in an empirical science and are thus to be avoided. † â€Å"Empirical applications of rational choice theory are more likely to commit these mistakes than other types of empirical analysis in political science. â€Å"These pathologies are not due to and historical coincidence, but are rooted in fundamental characteristics of rational choice theory, especially its universalist aspirations and the lack of specificity in the rational actor assumption† (Freidman 60). These propositions suggest that rational choice theory has its empirical limit for testing and predicting actual political outcomes. In detail, Green and Shapiro point out several problems of rational choice theory that possibly undermines the empirical validity of the theory itself. Post hoc theory development† known to statisticians as â€Å"curve fitting† is one of these problems that rational choice theory contains. Green and Shapiro â€Å"contend that rather than formulating bold predictions that are falsifiable by empirical evidence, rational choice theorist tend first to look at the empirical evidence, then design a rational choice model that fits it† (Friedman 5). Another problem raised by Green and Shapiro is rational choice theorists’ engagement in â€Å"arbitrary domain restriction† (Friedman 5). As discussed earlier, certain restrictions or constraints enable â€Å"a transitive ordering† in rational choice theory. Green and Shapiro argue that these constraints and restrictions are defined in ambiguous ways in rational choice model, which ultimately makes the empirical validity of the theory weakened. Green and Shapiro’s examination of the phenomenon of voting behavior is another major example that shows these problems rational choice theory innately possesses. â€Å"In a real-world election with a large electorate, it is instrumentally irrational for anyone to case a ballot, since no single vote has more than an infinitesimal chance of deciding the outcome. Whether one favors selfish or selfless ends, virtually any activity in pursuit of those ends would be more effective than the time spent on voting and on educating oneself about candidates and issues. Yet hundreds of millions of people do vote. For rational choice theory, this would appear to be a gigantic anomaly† (Friedman 6); As noted earlier, rational choice theory presumes that an agent of the model seeks best possible outcomes to maximize his or her utility in given constraints. However, according to Green and Shapiro, in a real-world voting behavior does not confirm this assumption of rational choice theory where voters cast a ballot without having enough time to assess or predict its possible outcome and realizing whether his or her action of voting maximize benefit or not. Another issue raised by Green and Shapiro is free riding problem; While voters can easily pursue a free riding action on the efforts of others to help the cause succeed, there is no need for people to devote resources of time and money to cause desired results. In other words, â€Å"rational choice theory would seem to be refuted not only by people who vote, but by those who contribute small amounts of money to political campaigns, attend rallies, and engage in other forms of collective action designed to secure goals whose achievement is independent of the efforts of any single participant† (Friedman 7). As seen from Green and Shapiro’s founding, most criticisms of rational choice theory seem to be that the assumptions of the theory are not literally and completely true. No model can pass such a test, as all theories abstract from reality in certain way. Determining the empirical validity of a model would therefore seem to involve an examination of both feasibility of assumptions and conformity with real-world data. The most basic assumption of rational choice theory is that the primary unit of analysis is the individual decision-maker. Those who believe that groups are fundamental have criticized this assumption. This issue of so called, â€Å"methodological individualism† are dealt in many contexts in the social sciences. In the book, â€Å"Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique†, Coleman and Fararo argues that models of purposive action or rational choice model can be useful in explaining and predicting human behavior. They further their argument by saying that â€Å"because the values and beliefs of individuals are shaped primarily by the socializing influences of society, especially as mediated through social relationships with significant other, an understanding of the culture and structure of societies and of the positions of individuals within them is necessary† (Coleman and Fararo 22). According to Coleman and Fararo, major problem for applying rational choice model particularly into Economics and Political Science, in which the primary interest has been in aggregate level outcomes, â€Å"is that the postulate of purposive action has been linked to arbitrary and narrow assumptions about what individuals value and believe† (Coleman Fararo 33). Also the assumption that human behavior is narrowly self-interested and the use of the term rationality to refer to the efficient pursuit of economic benefits has often produced incorrect assumption that rational choice model are innately egoistic; â€Å"that they regard individuals as calculating the expected benefit to themselves of alternative lines of action and acting accordingly (Coleman and Fararo 34). Recent empirical evidences suggest that human beings are capable of acting in ways for the interests of others or the social group above their self-interest, which implies that the assumption of individual’s pursuit of self-interest does not match with reality. Coleman and Fararo further their discussion of this â€Å"methodological individualism† by arguing that a social norm can be one primary example, which refutes the basic assumption of rational choice model. According to Coleman and Fararo, â€Å"When a social norm is know to have been violated, some type of formal or informal sanction will result† (Coleman Fararo 35). Formal sanction like a legal code or a set of rules and informal sanction like a disapproval or social ostracism would affect individual’s choice making process. Therefore, unlike the basic assumption of rational choice model suggests that human behavior is oriented from self-interest, by the effect of social norms and values, individuals can consequently act in altruistic or selfless way for pursuing the interests of groups they are involved in. Because of its limit and problematic nature of rational choice theory, the need for alternative explanation has become necessary for many scholars who criticize the theory. Dennis Chong provides some insights for the possible alternative of rational choice theory in his article, â€Å"Rational Choice Theory’s Mysterious Rivals†. According to Chong, even though Green and Shapiro’s critique against rational choice theory has failed to provide complete form of alternative explanation, there are some theoretical debates and discussions that suggest possible theoretical replacement or revision. Chong argues that, â€Å"Green and Shapiro occasionally allude to the influence of social-psychological and moral factors† such as group loyalties, emotions, political identities, ideology, obligation, and altruism (Friedman 47). As found in Coleman and Fararo’s arguments that institutional or social factors can affect individual’s choice making process, many scholars further their discussion of this social motivation as the alternative of rational choice theory. In his article, â€Å"When Rationality Fails†, Michael Taylor argues that social identification and intrinsic motivation can explain some of significant social phenomenon and collective action that has been ignored by rational choice theory; â€Å"If a person defines herself as a member of a group, or if her membership in a group is made cognitively salient, then she is more likely to observe the group’s norms and cooperate with group members in social dilemmas† (Friedman 230). For intrinsic motivation, Taylor explains that there are some activities that are intrinsically motivating people to be participated such as interesting work, volunteering, and political activities. In this case the activity itself or enjoyment of that activity is the reward for people. When extrinsic rewards like money are introduced, intrinsic motivation would diminish (Friedman 231). By suggesting the concept of social identification and intrinsic motivation, problems of rational choice model for explaining some collective action can be resolved. In this paper, a sense of how rational choice theory works and of its methodological foundations has been introduced. It has also been noticed that rational choice theory is not an ultimate answer. The theory is subject to a number of criticisms, but there is no doubt that its influence in various fields of study have brought tremendous amounts of theoretical debates, and increased the depth of economic, sociological, and political discussions. It is impossible to attain complete knowledge about anything, especially social phenomena. However, it is certain that rational choice approach is one of most crucial theoretical resources for human beings to explore and examine to gain this ultimate answer. It can be useful or misleading, depending on how it is treated. It is responsibility of remaining and future scholars and people to correctly apply and use this theory with open-minded attitude.

The Creation of the American Democracy Essays -- American America Hist

The Creation of the American Democracy When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, they came together with one common purpose in mind. They needed to form a fair and solid system of government that would stand the test of time; one that was both fair for the people and would not involve a monarchy. Each of these men had their own ideas on what would constitute this system, however, so many compromises had to be made. Together, the men gathered in Philadelphia created a federal system of government and drafted a constitution outlining this government. They took care in developing three branches of federal government with a system of checks and balances so that no one branch would gain too much power, thus avoiding any chance of regressing back into the government from which they had just escaped. The Framers even made sure that the most powerful branch had a check system within itself by creating a bicameral legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives which could not function one w ithout the other. The federal government that resulted from all of this deliberation was an overall system of democracy, although some undemocratic issues were involved. The American system of government is ultimately a democracy, because it is ultimately a true system of the people. However, not everything done at the Constitutional Convention was democratic. When representatives from the states met in Philadelphia, the majority were rich, educated, upper-class landowners. They claimed to have the best interests of the people in mind, and in most cases they did. That was, after all, the reason they were brought together. However, they still took some measures to ensure that the interests of the comm... ...te, and/or country. For this reason, the Electoral College system of electing our President should be redone and possibly eliminated. A leader must have the support of his country, and this can be assured only through a democratic election. The Bill of Rights is perhaps the best example of the democratic aspects of our government. It gives everyone equal freedoms and liberties, and it is truly in the best interests of everyone. When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, they gathered to create a democratic government: a government that worked for everyone and had the common interests of the people as its central purpose. Although some things done at the convention were indeed undemocratic, democracy ultimately prevailed and we were given a strong government with the ability to be amended to fit the common interests of the people throughout time.

A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror

The book written by Alfred McCoy (2006) entitled ‘A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror’ speaks of CIA’s process of developing different forms of torture through practice of sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain.These are done by means of isolation, hooding, manipulation of time, or by means of hours of standing, which was practiced by the U.S. CIA in Vietnam, in Iran, in Central America, and in Southeast Asia.   This, according to McCoy (2006), is not so much a physical torture but a psychological one that, if not improved or reassessed scrupulously, could affect and damage America’s good reputation and respectable global standing.Main BodyMcCoy (2006) opened his book with the scene by CBS Television of the Abu Ghraib prison that showed â€Å"Iraqis naked, hooded, and contorted in humiliating positions while U.S. soldiers stood over them, smiling† (p.5).   According to McCoy (2006),[T]hese photos are not, in fact, snapshots of simple sadism or a breakdown in military discipline†¦ [but] CIA torture methods that have metastasized like an undetected cancer inside the U.S. intelligence community over the past half century. (p.5)With its origin dating back to more than 50 years ago during the Cold War, this type of scenes and incidents promoted political scandals and controversies that reached even to the Bush’s administration of the interrogation policy.From the 1950 to 1962, CIA’s experiments on the best type of torture landed on psychological torture, or what was also called as the ‘no-touch’ type of torture.   The two new methods that were formulated was the use of ‘sensory disorientation’ and ‘self-inflicted pain’ that made the victim â€Å"feel responsible for their suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers† (McCoy, 2006, p.8).As also indicated, â€Å"The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a hammer-blow to the fundamentals of personal identity† (p.8).   After the year 1963, the no-touch method of torture included methods of ‘unimaginable cruelties’ in the form of physical as well as sexual harassments, such as the scenes at Abu Ghraib.The use of mind control by the CIA propagates evil torture, which leads to political scandal and ruin.   CIA’s basic purpose, of course, is for defense against foreign threats.   However, for the past 50 years, this type of torture of the America’s CIA reflected political and administrative wreck that tended to worsen as each decade passed.From the Phoenix program in Vietnam in the early ‘60s, immorality appears to be the basic framework of the American agenda of foreign defense and protection.   There were already incidents like these back in the 1960s; and to witness it alive and kicking until the 21st century is a huge sign that something wrong has been going on with America’s method of extricating criminals.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae Essay - 677 Words

Mycoplasma pneumoniae Background: Mycoplasma pneumoniae is unique because of its small genome and physical size. The bacterium contains only 500-2300 Kba in its genome that produces about 700 different proteins. Its reduced genome has been clearly mapped. M. pneumoniae size range from 0.2 to 0.8 micrometer and are capable of passing through most filters designed to remove bacteria. The bacterium is the smallest living organism capable of replicating itself. The bacterium lacks a cell wall but has a three layered cell membrane with sterols. It can take on any shape from cocci to filamentous. An agar plates the colonies have a specific fried egg look. It lives mainly as a parasite in humans where it can maintain its osmotic balance†¦show more content†¦There were 2 million cases in the US with 100,000 requiring hospitalization. The mortality rate is very low with only occasional fatalities among the elderly and sickle cell anemia persons. Virulence: The bacterium evolved by loosing its genes converting it from a free-living microbe into a pathogen. It needs the host’s nutrients in order to survive. The bacterium latches itself onto the host epithelial cells by a 160 kDa type 1 pilli. The pilli, located on a specific organelle on the polar region of the bacterium, attaches to the sialic residues that are present on epithelial cells. It then begins to colonize creating a cascade of problems to the host. M. pneumoniae stops the cilliary movement and produces hydrogen peroxides and superoxides as metabolic waste that kill the epithelial and neighboring cells. The inactive cilia of the epithelium cells produce non-productive coughs, fever and sore throat. It also causes an immune repose monopolizing the immune systems but through antigenic variations it capable of avoiding being phagocytized. By monopolizing the immune system the pathogen is capable of making the host susceptible to other pathogens. Other virulence factors inc lude its ability to deplete nearby cells of nutrients. Treatment: The antibiotic usually given is tetracycline and erythromycin. Penicillins are useless because the bacterium lacks a cell wall. The body’s own immune systems will eventually take care of theShow MoreRelatedPharmaceutical Care Plan - Cap1171 Words   |  5 Pagesand 14%. It is the sixth leading cause of death, and the leading infectious cause of death (Maimon, Nopmaneejumruslers and Marras, 2008). The group of most likely causative bacteria in includes Streptococcus pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae, and Chlamydophila pneumoniae. This essay will appraise the treatment of CAP in an elderly patientwhose care plan can be found in Appendix 1. For the purpose of this essay we will discuss the severity assessment criteria, choice and effectivenessRead MoreMycoplasma Pneumonia Essay825 Words   |  4 PagesMycoplasma Pneumonia is the most common pneumonia ranging in older kids and younger adults. This type of lung infection goes by many different names such as Walking Pneumonia, Eaton Agent Pneumonia and Primary Atypical Pneumonia. Mycoplasma Pneumoniae is one of the smallest living organisms that can reproduce outside of a cell but, prefers to have a host and to be parasitic. Mycoplasma pneumoniae likes to party in the late summer and early fall especially in communities but is still found in theRead MorePneumoni A Serious Infectious Disease1229 Words   |  5 Pagesbacterial pneumonia is Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus)† (Pneumonia Can Be Prevented). Bacterial pneumonia is the most common cause of pneumonia in adults whereas viral pneumonia is the most common cause in children, especially in children unde r the age of 2 years. Bacterial infections often only effect on section, or lobe, known as lober pneumonia. Another bacteria like organism called mycoplasma is the cause of walking pneumonia. â€Å"Mycoplasma pneumoniae (M. pneumoniae) was discovered in 1944 in aRead MoreSymptoms And Symptoms Of Pneumonia1470 Words   |  6 Pagescausing pneumonia. There are several different germs that cause pneumonia such as bacteria, viruses, mycoplasma, and fungi. Even chemicals can cause pneumonia. Bacteria is a common cause of pneumonia and the most common one is known as Streptococcus pneumoniae. Although there are several, some other types of bacteria include Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Chlamydophila pneumoniae. Some viruses that cause pneumonia include, adenoviruses, rhinovirus, influenza virus (flu), and respiratoryRead MorePneumonia Is A Common Infectious Disease1614 Words   |  7 Pagescauses community acquired pneumonia is Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae), followed by other pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae and Legionella species.8 In addition, community acquired Streptococcus Pneumoniae is found in patients who have not visited or admitted to any medical facility recently.8 DV is a 10 years old male weighing 60lbs who has been diagnosed with S. pneumoniae, the primary treatment for this condition is PenicillinRead MoreSymptoms And Treatment Of A Common Infectious Disease755 Words   |  4 Pagesan important cause of mortality and morbidity all over the world. The most common bacterial pathogen that a cause of CAP is Streptococcus pneumoniae (penicillin-sensitive and -resistant strains) and accounts for almost thirty percent of CAP cases. Other pathogens include Haemophilus influenza, Moraxella catarrhalis, Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and influenza A. In more than half of the cases of CAP, the pathogen is never recognized (Thiem, Heppner, Pientka, 2011). Plan of TreatmentRead MorePneumonia Disease Research Paper1940 Words   |  8 Pagesincluding the brain, kidneys, and heart. Bacteria can also travel to the area between the lungs and the chest wall causing a complication where there is a buildup of pus around the lungs. The most common causes of bacterial pneumonia are Streptococcus pneumoniae and atypical bacteria. Atypical bacteria are parasitic bacteria that live inside the cell or do not have a cell wall. Furthermore, they cause generally less severe pneumonia, therefore atypical symptoms, and respond to different antibiotics thanRead MoreCommon Pathogens That Cause Heent Infections?1521 Words   |  7 Pagesthe pathogens associated with acute otitis media (AOM) include, S. pneumoniae, H. influenza, M. catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pyogenes. The common cold or rhinosinusitis is likely caused by rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, coronaviruses, enteroviruses, influenza and parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory syncytial virus (Bur ns, Dunn, Brady, Starr, Blosser, 2013). Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a result of the S. pneumoniae, H. influenza, M. catarrhalis and/or B-hemolytic streptococci bacteriasRead MorePneumonia: the Silent Killer895 Words   |  4 Pagespneumonias tend to be the most serious and, in adults, the most common cause of pneumonia. The most common pneumonia-causing bacterium in adults is Streptococcus Pneumoniae. Respiratory viruses are the most common causes of pneumonia in young children, peaking between the ages of 2 and 3. By school age, the bacterium Mycoplasma Pneumoniae becomes more common. In some people, particularly the elderly and those who are debilitated, bacterial pneumonia may follow influenza or even a common cold. PeopleRead MoreThe Is The Integrated Pattern Of Human Behavior, Culture, Race, Ethnicity, And Culture922 Words   |  4 Pagesthe age of 16 and continued to have them right up until she died. When she died, her mother, which is my great grandmother, stepped up in her children life. My grandmother, Patricia died of mycoplasma pneumonia and heart failure. According to Braun, Wagner, Huttner, and Schmid (2006), â€Å"Mycoplasma pneumoniae is one of the most common known bacterial pathogens of the respiratory tract, especially in patients between 5 and 30 years of age (p. 371).† This disease caused her to die at age 35 in November