The underlying idea is simple but powerful. If we are trying to explain some phenomenon, X, then we need to identify variations in the likelihood of X or the rate of X, and look for potential causes that (1) vary across the relevant circumstances in a way that could explain X and (2) that we can connect to the outcomes for X in some way. For example, with the gender distinctive clothing question, some ways to better specify the question and look at it through comparisons are:
development has many aspect or diversified in nature..like wise religion, socital, industrial, spritual, enviornmental, agricultural, institutional, technoligical…sustainable and personal development and resources needs and their limits and transportations ….impact of globalisation on may be in all manner behavioral, food, shelter or cultural or geographical aspect or need …people develops their needs and imitating and importining others values and culture…. that is what engendered or propagate and so on thinks…… can be protect and propagate developments …its on going process and not in denger
Emerson’s overwhelming faith in the individual is completely opposite to his views on nations: “Every actual state is corrupt.” Political parties are “made out of necessity” of the time period and not out of any underlying theory. Emerson is very critical of both major parties in his essay.  “From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to expect in science, art or humanity, at all commensurate with the resources of the nation.” Neither party is satisfactory for Emerson, and his essay he hints at the natural inequality this system adheres to, and its effects. Party politics are not the only organization Emerson has his eye on in his essay, however. Emerson also distrusts the pulpit and the press because they are conventional roles that require organizational persuasion.