Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Europe and Turkey Essay Example for Free
Europe and Turkey Essay Discussions about Euro-Turkish relations today would normally hover around Turkey’s application for membership to the European Union which has been pending since the mid 1900s. Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country situated in southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia, has been an associate member of the European Community (the forerunner of the European Union) since 1964, but is still working for a full membership forty-two years later. (Turkey. The World Fact Book. Para 1) The union, which started as a regional economic grouping in 1951, counted among its six original members the countries of Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. It opened its doors for new members for the first time in 1973 when it welcomed into its folds Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Another country joined in 1981(Greece) and two more countries enlisted in 1986.  The year 1995 accounted for three additional members, and, finally, in 2004, ten more countries were granted full membership to wrap up today’s final roster of twenty-five member-countries. The European Union, in a recruitment process which spanned thirty-one years, accepted a total of nineteen additional members since 1951. (European Union. The World Fact Book.  para.2)  This fairly robust growth in the union membership compels us to ask the obvious questions: What happened to Turkey’s application for membership which was filed forty-two years ago – nine years before the union first opened its doors for new members? Bypassed five times in thirty-one years, does Turkey still stand a chance for that elusive membership?            .  Historical Background. The conundrum that characterizes the Euro-Turkish relationship has its historical roots in the 1800s. When the heads of states of the European countries gathered together after the fall of Napoleon in 1814 in what has been known as the â€Å"Congress of Vienna†to literally remake the map of Europe, every country was represented except Turkey. The reason for this was never explicitly given in any historical account. However, this discriminatory act prompted Turkey to adopt the view that Europe was becoming a â€Å"Christian Club†, considering the fact that it was the only predominantly Muslim country in the region. There were attempts to brush aside this Turkish claim by referring to numerous incidents of massacre and claims of corruption in the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire – practices which were said to be intolerable for Europeans. (Gerolymatos, para.5) Looking back at that point in history, however, we are left to wonder whether these reasons were real, fabricated, or even morally adequate to warrant such an exclusionary action on the part of the congress initiators. In fairness to Turkey, could the rest of Europe claim absolute innocence of such offences during those turbulent years in European history?            The Congress of Vienna. A careful reading of the intents of the Congress of Vienna would show us that the Turkish claim might not be as baseless as congress organizers wanted it to appear. The primary goal of the gathering was to restore political boundaries in Europe which were abolished by the expansionist wars waged by Napoleon. One of the four principles that guided the Congress of Vienna in that self-appointed task of reestablishing the European political order was the â€Å"encirclement of France†. At the time, the Congress of Vienna considered the task of adopting adequate measures to guard against future aggressions by France so urgent that it decided that fortresses situated in strategic points surrounding France should be controlled by allied forces for up to a period of five years. It is clear, therefore, that what was commonly at the back of every congress delegates’ minds at that time was what to do to contain France. Yet, it interestingly, the four major players in that meeting were Lord Castlereagh of Great Britain, Tsar Alexander I of Russia, Prince von Metternich of Austria, and Talleyrand of France![1] (Wallbank, Taylor, Carson. 1960) What a way for a France-wary Europe to include a French representative in concocting anti-French plans! Was it not ironical, therefore, that while France appeared to be the bad guy of the day, it was Turkey who got excluded from the congress? The Right of Turkey. Let us look at the map of Europe in 1815[2] and consider the geographical locations of the three European countries who figured prominently in that conference with relevance to their proximity to France, vis a vis Turkey. Great Britain is nearest, but it is an island separated from the continent by the English Channel, and was, in fact, protected by the most advanced navy during those times.  The Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were almost equidistant from, and were both separated from France, by the Germanic Federation, the Kingdom of Hungary, Switzerland, and the Kingdom of Sardinia.  Tsarist Russia was farthest, because it is situated behind the Empire of Austria. (Wallbank, et al. 1960)  If the fear of further threats from France was what forced these three nations to exert undue influence on the Congress of Vienna to do something about France, then Turkey had as much right as they had to be in that meeting.  Now let us look at the allegations of massacres and corruption involving Turkey which â€Å"were just too much for Europeans to stomach†, and which, apparently, was made an excuse for not inviting Turkey to the conference. (Gerolymatos, para.5)  Again, we have to bear in mind that those were periods of instability and violent struggles for power and survival. Governments and monarchies were scurrying to consolidate their influence and control over their domains.  As the Jacobins, who were at the helm of the National Convention that governed France in 1793, put it, â€Å"What constitutes the Republic is the complete destruction of everything that is opposed to it.† And so it was that in France, historians believe that the â€Å"reign of terror†, which reached its peak in 1793, might have accounted for as much as twenty-thousand people executed simply because they were considered royalists, and counted among its victims Queen Marie Antoinette and the great orator Danton, â€Å"because he wished to end the policy of terror†. It must also be pointed out that during the rule of the monarchy in France (the Bourbon House, represented by Louis XVIII, was restored in France by the Congress of Vienna), the judicial and municipal offices, among others, were for sale. (Wallbank, et al. 1960) So why are they (apparently including the French), being so righteous about these questions of massacres and corruption? In my research in the subject, although I have found reports of maltreatment by the minority Turks over the Christians in the Balkan Peninsula, I failed to obtain hard historical evidence of â€Å"massacres†during the period in question. However, what I did find were the â€Å"massacre of all Greeks in Constantinople†in 1821 and the â€Å"Turkish massacre of the entire Greek population of the island of Chios in 1822†, both events happening in connection with the Greek uprising of 1821. (Wallbank, et al. 1960) Incidentally, these events happened seven years after the Congress of Vienna and could not have been the ones referred to by the congress delegates. However, for purposes of discussion, granting that the Turks were as guilty as the French, why condemn the first and exonerate the latter? The Present Situation. Turkey became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952. (Turkey. The World Fact Book.  para.1) It appears that joining a military organization composed mostly of European countries several years after the Second World War did not present much of a problem for Turkey. In my analysis, this was because Turkey was valuable to NATO at the time. Together with Greece and Iran, it â€Å"formed the northern tier of the Western perimeter against the encroaching Soviet Union.† (Gerolymatos, para.6) It did not matter then that Turkey was not well-equipped militarily. The United States â€Å"lavished their newfound all[y] with billions of dollars worth of weapons systems†(apparently without any objections coming from her European friends), so that Turkey can perform the functions of a perimeter guard satisfactorily. (para.7). And so the truth was laid out for everyone to see: that in the name of â€Å"military cooperation†, a subsidized Turkey was considered an ally, treated as â€Å"one of the boys†. Perhaps even a member of the European family of nations? Anything just to encourage Turkey to help in the defense of Europe against Russian advances. The European Union. Moving into the field of economics, everything takes on a very different shape and color. In this area, according to the Europeans, Turkey undeniably failed to qualify.[3] It’s as simple as that. The European Union, despite having considered Turkey as an associate member since 1964, did not lift a finger to help her make the grade.  Instead, the union bureaucrats, in claiming a softening of their position and again to brush aside Turkey’s allegations of the existence of a â€Å"Christian Club†in Europe (remember 1814?), agreed to consider Turkey’s application â€Å"provided that Turkey bring into force several pieces of reform legislation†, then stepped back and waited for results. (Turkey and Europe: An Invitation to Dance? Para.2) No more billions (with no strings attached) to bolster her economy to qualify the country for union membership. Not like with NATO. Indeed, it was a far cry from the billions of dollars worth of military hardware which turned Turkey into a worthy member of NATO. Do I detect a double standard here? Does it mean that it’s all right to pour billions of dollars into Turkey’s arsenal to help in defending Europe, but it could not be acceptable to help it economically so that it could be eligible for European Union membership? Interestingly, the military strategists who welcomed Turkey with open arms, and the economists who can’t seem to accept her, are both based in Brussels, Belgium. â€Å"Islamization†of Europe. There are fears among scholars and independent observers alike, that the â€Å"Islamization†of Europe is imminent in the coming years. Mr. Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, cites two contributory factors, namely: â€Å"the hollowing out of Christianity†[in Europe], and â€Å"an anemic birth rate [among Europeans].†(Moslem Europe. Para. 2 3) Mr. Pipes explains this twin phenomenon as the diminishing number of Europeans who remain to be practicing Christians compared to the fewer, but ever committed and devout Islam followers, on the one hand, and the very low incident of births among Europeans (many of whom do not want to have children), against the unhindered reproduction among Moslems who do not practice birth control, on the other hand. (Para. 3) Following up on this argument being advanced by Mr. Pipe, the world will one day see a Europe populated by a Moslem majority and a Christian minority. The logic in his reasoning is simple. First, even if the Christian population remains the numerical majority, if the mainstream Christians are no longer interested in practicing Christianity, Islam, although preached by the minority, has an outside chance of becoming the dominant religious persuasion in the region. Second, given the Europeans’ seeming indifference to procreation and taking note of the Moslems’ predilection for large families, the future demographic characteristic of Europe certainly favors the Moslem community. The situation, though, is not that hopeless if Mr. Pipe is to be believed. According to him, although a remote possibility considering things as they are now developing in Europe, this trend towards Islamization could still be thwarted. Three developments working in concert could still revitalize Europe and restore it to the Christian society that it once was: first, Christian faith must be restored among the majority of Europeans and birthrate should be increased; second, the Moslem countries has to be modernized (effectively reducing unemployment) to cut down Moslem migration to Europe; and, third, migration to Europe should be diversified, with greater efforts directed at attracting more immigrants from the Christian regions such as the Latin American countries.  Mr. Pipe, however, seems to urge Europe to act with urgency because â€Å"the prospects diminish with time.†(Moslem Europe. Para. 7) Islamic terrorism. There now exists in Europe what is called the Generation Jihad.[4] Powell (2005) describes it as the â€Å"restive, rootless young Muslims who have spent their lives in Europe but now find themselves alienated from their societies and the policies of their governments.† Powell believes that this alienation resulted from frustrations among the ranks of young Muslims to have better opportunities in life, as well as their resentment towards official policies which they feel are prejudicial to Muslims. (Generation Jihad. Page.2) To underscore the danger posed by Islamic terrorism in Europe, Powell cited estimates done by the French police which revealed that out of the recorded 1,600 mosques in France as of 2004, around 150 were controlled by extremist elements.  He also referred to a study which showed that 23% of the 1,160 French nationals who recently converted to Islam admitted to being Salafists, or members of a violent extremist sect. (Generation Jihad. Page 2)  He also argued that the occupation of Iraq by the United States and her allies has influenced the Muslims in Europe into believing that these western countries are determined to destroy Islam. This belief somewhat radicalized the Muslims and convinced them that their only recourse is to fight and defend Islam. (Page 4) Conclusion. As had been shown earlier in this paper, there undeniably exists a feeling of unexplained awkwardness and even mistrust among Christian European countries towards the predominantly Muslim Turkey since the nineteenth century. The recent developments associating Muslims with terrorism in Europe are more likely to widen this rift between Turkey and the rest of the continent. Moreover, the fear of the Islamization of Europe voiced by some observers does absolutely nothing to bridge this gap. Considering the poor economic conditions in Turkey which have already fallen short of the European Union standards, the aforementioned factors might prove fatal to the chances of Turkey for a full membership in the European Union. Unless drastic economic and political measures are implemented, coupled with a complete turnaround in the European attitude towards Turkey, the wait for the much coveted EU membership might well take another decade or two.                     REFERENCES European Union. The World FactBook. Central Intelligence Agency. United States Department of State. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ec.html Gerolymatos, A. Turkey and Europe: A Political and Historical Conundrum. Diogenes.            Retrieved from: http://www.omogenia.com/~diogenis/turkeyandeurope.html Pipes, Mr. Moslem Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.falange.us/moslem5a.htm Powell, B. (26 Sept. 2005).Generation Jihad. Time Magazine online. Retrieved from:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1109334-1,00.html            Satiroglu, H.T.(03 October 2006). Turkey and Europe: An Invitation to Dance? WorldPoliticsWatch. Retieved from: http://worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=229 Turkey. The World FactBook. Central Intelligence Agency. United States Department of                        State. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html Wallbank, T.W., Taylor, A.M., Carson, G.B.Jr. (1960) Civilization. (Vol. Two). Glenview, Illinois. Scott, Foresman and Company. [1] See Wallbank, et al, pages 110-113, for an insightful discussion of the events in the Congress of Vienna. [2] See Wallbank, et al, page 193 for the map of the Ottoman Empire 1815. [3] Refer to the section on Turkey of The World Fact Book for the economic statistics on Turkey. [4] Read Generation Jihad by Bill Powell, pages 1-6, for a detailed discussion of this phenomenon.
Monday, August 5, 2019
Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue
Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue TITLE Using a human fear paradigm, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to show competition between an instrumental avoidance response and a Pavlovian safety signal for association with omission of shock. Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning are two forms of associative learning. Pavlovian conditioning involves humans learning that initially neutral conditioned stimuli (CSs), such as a tone or colour, predicts an outcome (US), such as electric shock, or in the case of safety signals, safety, such as an omission of shock. Instrumental learning refers to learning associations between voluntary responses (such as a button press, or an avoidance response) and outcomes or reinforcers, such as shock or an omission of shock. In their first, overshadowing, experiment, expectancy data but not skin conductance levels (SCLs) suggested mutual overshadowing, as when the avoidance response (button press, *) and safety signal (C) were both presented with stimulus A, expectancy of shock was significantly lo wer than when A was only presented with the avoidance response or safety signal. In the second, blocking, experiment, no matter whether the avoidance response or C was pre-trained, the pre-trained element yielded the lowest expectancies of shock (i.e. greater safety learning), while safety learning of the alternate element was suppressed. Lovibond et al (2013) conclude that the expectancy data, as well as the non-significant SCL data, in the blocking and overshadowing paradigms exhibit evidence that competition occurred between the instrumental avoidance response and Pavlovian safety signal, and therefore a common learning mechanism underlies both forms of associative learning. In this paper, Lovibond et als (2013) experiments, and their conclusions, shall be critiqued. Strengths Lovibond et al (2013) exhibited considerable strength in the planning of their experiments. In both experiments, they used a variation of a previously used paradigm, such that their experiments already had relatively sound internal consistency and construct validity. They had the foresight to acknowledge the possibility that participants would learn a response-stimulus-outcome relationship rather than viewing the avoidance response and safety stimulus C as separate predictors. That is, they saw a potential weakness in their experimental design in that C could become a mediator of the causal efficacy of the avoidance response, rather than a competing cause. As such, in both experiments, they deliberately adjusted their design in order to prevent this by adding BC- trials and varying the time interval between the avoidance response and safety signal, to weaken the response-stimulus C association. They additionally asked participants to rate the degree of association between them, as we ll as with shock, so that they would know if response-stimulus-outcome learning had nonetheless occurred. Lovibond et al (2013) used previous research in order to resolve potential issues that could arise before running their experiment. For example, they doubled the number of B- trials in the pre-training phase because a prior study of theirs showed that predictors of no shock are more slowly learnt than predictors of shock, and they needed to ensure differential conditioning to stimuli A and B had occurred. Furthermore, aware that C being novel could be more anxiety-provoking and hence confound results by resulting in more conservative expectancy ratings and a higher SCL, Lovibond et al (2013) ensured that the first trial of the compound phase was always a BC- trial to reduce the novelty of C before it was paired with stimulus A. They acknowledged , in experiment 1, the possibility of participants having never experienced a trial with just the instrumental response or just the saf ety signal before the test phase, and thus participants may have been more conservative in their judgments, and account for this through directly evaluating competition via a blocking paradigm in experiment 2 where one group pre-trained Pavlovian (AC- trials) and the other pretrained (A* (+)) to ensure wasn’t just conservative ratings etcetera Lovibond et al (2013) also exhibited strength in their rigorously controlled experimental design. The use of headphones constantly emitting white noise (except when the tone stimulus was presented), ensured safety signal-shock learning was not confounded by external, extraneous sounds. The 180 degree rotary dial presented a more accurate measure of expectancy than a typical Likert 1-10 confidence scale. Lovibond et al (2013) used inter-trial intervals to ensure adequate time between trials to prevent confusion, to ensure shock was paired with the correct stimulus (A or B), and to allow SCL to return to baseline levels. Furthermore, they used Bonferroni correction to control for the extra possibility of type I error from using two measurements (expectancy and SCL data). In terms of theoretical strengths, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to explain unexpected results; and provide alternate explanations for expectancy data. In experiment 1, they excuse the lack of difference in expectancy to shock between A+ and B- trials in the pre-training phase, by explaining that across the remainder of the experiment, there was a significant difference in expectancies between the two (that is, differential conditioning occurred, it simply took longer than they expected). In experiment 1, they also provided an explanation for SCL unexpectedly increasing in the compound phase from trial 1 to trial 2, explaining that only 37% of participants made an instrumental response on the first trial, so that most participants received a shock then (so SCL would have been higher for trial 2 as they would be more anxious about being shocked), and from trial 2 onwards SCL declined appropriately. In experiment 1, they provided an alternate explanation for the expectancy data, by c laiming that it may have just been the novelty of A*- and AC- (that is, the novelty of testing the avoidance response and safety signal individually) that may have lead to the more conservative expectancy ratings when they were presented individually compared to when in conjunction. That is, they highlighted that it may not have been mutual overshadowing or competition that lead to lowered shock expectancies when in conjunction compared to when elements were presented individually, but rather an effect of novelty. This retained a sense of objectivity that is often forgotten in psychological reports which are determined to present their findings as definitive conclusions. Furthermore, while they do not bring this argument up, it is clear that this was not the case based on similar expectancy data from the blocking paradigm in Experiment 2, where either A* or AC- were pre-trained (that is, they were not novel in the test phase), and similar results emerged. They conclude by mentioning that the evidence of a single learning mechanism found in the paper is preliminary, not definitive, which is a strength as it highlights the need for repetition and an accumulation of more data to prove without a doubt that there is a single learning mechanism Lovibond et al (2013) do not make any assumptions. This is furthered by their outline of limitations in their own experiment by attempting an objective evaluation of their own experiment, a practice which is sometimes forgotten by psychologists who wish to convince their readers of their findings. As they highlight, the strongest evidence for competition was a cross-experiment comparison. They attempt to dismiss this limitation by saying that the same participant pool was used, with the same equipment, experimenter and same time frame, and that the common trials (A+ and B-) gave highly congruent data, suggesting that the test phases could be directly compared across experiments. Nonetheless, they acknowledge that a within-subjects design would be better. They highlight the limitation that only the expectancy measure yielded significant effects, but attempt to excuse this by explaining that autonomic conditioning results are often insignificant due to large individual differences which inflate the error term and reduce power. Weaknesses Unfortunately, Lovibond et al (2013)’s design had some flaws. Although they added BC- trials and varied time intervals between the avoidance response and presentation of safety signal C to ensure the avoidance response and stimulus C were independent, competing causes of shock, the post-experiment questionnaires where participants rated the degree of relationship between the two revealed that they were aware of a relationship between them. This means that the results (the lowered expectancies to shock when the avoidance response and safety signal were presented together, than when presented individually), which Lovibond et al (2013) saw as evidence for competition between an avoidance response and safety signal (and thus evidence for a single learning mechanism) may have simply occurred as the safety signal C, as a mediator of causal efficacy of the avoidance response, would have resulted in lower expectancy of shock when combined with the avoidance response, than when they we re separate (no competition necessary), whether in the blocking or overshadowing paradigm. Lovibond et al (2013) failed to discuss this, brushing it off as an intrinsic problem when there are voluntary responses. Continuing, while not the most ethical option, conditioning may have been more robust (in particular, SCL results may have been significant) if the level of shock selected for participants was manageably painful instead of just uncomfortable. This is because more variability in SCL would have emerged as participants would have been more anxious. The highly constructed laboratory setting, where they deliberately presented twice as many B- trials, and made as many adjustments as possible to find significant results, begs the question as to how often competition between avoidance responses and safety signals occurs in real life, and whether the single mechanism of learning proposed by Lovibond et al (2013) really exists or is just a fabrication of the laboratory procedures use d. Furthermore, humans are quite intelligent: by giving them instructions telling them that pressing a button or hearing a tone may or may not effect an outcome, it would be much easier for them to gain an accurate perception of expectancy of shock, particularly if they were undergraduate psychology students, which they probably were, and this may have confounded the results by lowering the expectancies in significant amounts accordingly that is, rather than genuine competition, participants may have just believed that there were connections from the instructions given, that there was less chance of shock when a button press or tone, and in conjunction, there was the least chance. Continuing, Lovibond et al (2013) claim, in their first experiment, that they had 53 participants, and in their second experiment, 89 participants, but after exclusions, the sample sizes of these experiments were 30 and 57 respectively. While they still had significant expectancy data, Lovibond et al (2013) should have specified more accurately the number of participants in each experiment. Furthermore, if they had had a larger sample size, they may have found significant SCL results due to greater power. Lovibond et al (2013), make faulty conclusions regarding SCL data. They conclude that the SCL data pattern mirrors that of the expectancy data across both experiments. However, as the SCL results were not significant, it is inappropriate to conclude this, as there is a higher probability that any mirrored pattern could be the result of chance alone. Statistically speaking, if the SCL data was not significant, than no real differences between the instrumental response and safety signal tested individually versus together have been found. Furthermore, Lovibond et al (2013) brush off the lack of findings in SCL data by claiming that the SCL measure is unreliable. However, it must be asked then, why Lovibond et al (2013) used such a measure in the first place if it is so unreliable. They claim that SCL have greater individual variability and greater sensitivity to extraneous factors and that is why there were no significant results, but in real life, those extraneous factors are bound to interfere, and if there were non-significant results with such factors, one must ask how applicable a single learning mechanism approach is. Granted, it could be argued that Lovibond et al (2013) is a highly theoretical paper by nature, interested in modeling conditioned learning (by claiming a single underlying mechanism defines conditioned learning structure), rather than application. However, one must ask how relevant or important a model could be if it does not have any external validity. Lovibond et al (2013), furthermore, make assumptions in their conclusions. They fail to explain why it follows that because there seems to be a common associative mechanism that the critical association in instrumental learning is an R-O association in order to explain competition with a Pavlovian S-O association. They do not attempt to explain why, in their cross-experiment comparison, expectancy measure responding in the blocked condition was significantly higher than in the overshadowing condition. Continuing, they assume that if there is a single-learning mechanism, it must be propositional by nature. This is problematic, because while the common thought among single-learning mechanism theorists is that the mechanism is propositional, Lovibond et al (2013) do not explain how their experiment exhibits a propositional mechanism. Even if they have provided evidence for a single-learning mechanism, they have not provided evidence regarding the nature of this single-learning mechanism . Propositional accounts claim that associative learning depends on effortful, attention-demanding reasoning processes. However, one must ask which part of this experiment showed that learning was an effortful process. Continuing, propositional models are faulty. Propositional accounts of learning fail to align with animal and developmental psychology. Non-human animals exhibit associative learning, although they do not have the language to deploy propositions to infer relations about events. If p, then q (or contingency) propositions, are not understood until children are 6years old. However, despite lacking the language abilities and contingency propositions to infer relations about events, backward blocking and other evidence of associative learning has been shown in children as young as 8 months. As X claims, there is not enough evidence to justify structured mental representations existing when associative learning occurs (i.e. a propositional model), over a broad, non-proposit ional associative link between representations. In their introduction, Lovibond et al (2013) are pedantic with their definitions in their introduction when explaining how Pavlovian and instrumental learning could be separate mechanisms. They differentiate between performance and learning claiming that Pavlovian performance is involuntary while instrumental responses are voluntary, but that does not mean they are not learnt the same way. However, if they are to be differentiated, as Lovibond et al (2013) do, whether in their experiment they are actually measuring an underlying mechanism or performance in the test phase, as generated expectancies could simply be another measure of performance their anxiety levels (CR) conditioned to the safety signal or avoidance response. Continuing, they claim that the notation E1 and E2, where E1 could be a stimulus (Pavlovian) or action (Instrumental conditioning), and where E2 is the outcome, reinforces the notion that a single learning mechanism may underlie both types of associative learning . However, this is simply induced notation. Equally, one could use the notation S-S for Pavlovian learning (the CS-US link, hence S-S), and R-O for instrumental learning (the response-outcome relationship), to portray them as separate learning mechanisms, and to support a dual-process model. Thus, Lovibond et als (2013) proposal of a single learning mechanism is largely based on unfounded claims. Furthermore, in their introduction, while Lovibond et al (2013) attempt to provide evidence for a single-learning mechanism, evidence can also be provided for a dual-process model. For example, a single learning mechanism assumes awareness is required for conditioning. However, Baeyens et al 1990 found flavour-flavour learning occurred in absence of any contingency awareness. Continuing, in Perruchets task where a tone was either paired with an air-puff or was presented alone, when the tone and airpuff had recently been paired together, expectancy of an air puff on the next trial was reduced, the probability of an eyeblink CR occurring was heightened. Furthermore, neurological data suggests different brain regions are involved in different learning processes, for example, the amygdala plays a large role in fear conditioning. Therefore, it is possible that instrumental and pavlovian are equally run by different parts of the brain. Lovibond et al (2013) did not actually provide evidenc e against such a model. For example, they could have argued against the dual-process model by claiming that the dissociation between the eyeblink CR and expectancy when CS-US pairings have recently been presented in the Perruchet task, which some learning theorists use to support the dual-process model, that the eyeblink CR results from sensitisation from recent US presentation (a recent air puff). Alternately, they could counter-argue that while the amygdala has a large part in fear learning, it could simply be a subcomponent of a broader, singular system of learning. It would have been a more convincing argument that the experiments were necessary and that a single learning mechanism were possible if they had had more depth in the lead up to their hypotheses. Conclusion Lovibond et al (2013) claim from their experiments that a single learning mechanism underlies Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning. However, despite their attempts to remain objective and their rigorous planning and control of their experiment, they fail to address vital problems to their experiment (such as the possibility of the safety signal being a mediator for the efficacy of the avoidance response), assume, without sufficient evidence, that if a single learning mechanism underlies both types of associative learning, it must be propositional in nature (a faulty assumption), speak of SCL data as if it were significant when it was not, and in the lead-up to their hypotheses regarding a single learning mehcanism, fail to dismiss the possibility of a dual-process model. Reference Lovibond, P.F. and Colagiuri, B., 2013. Facilitation of voluntary goal-directed action by reward cues. Psychological Science, 24(10), pp.2030-2037.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Reflexivity and Modern Works of Anthropology Essay -- Ethnography Cult
Reflexivity and Modern Works of Anthropology The role of reflexivity in Anthropology has changed a great deal over time. The effects of doing ethnography on the ethnographer was not considered an important mode of inquiry in the past. While inevitably, going to far distant lands and living with a culture so different from your own will at least cause the ethnographer to reflect on personal issues but most likely will cause profound changes in the way he or she will view the world. But in the past these changes were not important. What was necessary for the ethnographer to do in the past was to document a culture break it down structurally and quantify the observations made. The reflexive nature of his or her experiences were of little or no importance to the anthropological community. But over the years this has changed tremendously and Anthropology concerns itself more and more with the interactions between the ethnographer and his or her informants and the changes that occur in both due to the research being conducted. The sc ope of this paper will be to show this transition and also why it occurred. The role of the Anthropologist in the past has been to document other cultures in order so the colonial authorities could better know how to rule them this is apparent in Bronislaw Malinowski's essay on the Trobriand islanders. He said, "The ethnographer has in the field, according to what has just been said, the duty before him of drawing up all the rules and regularities of tribal life; all that is permanent and fixed; of giving an anatomy of their culture, of depicting the constitution of their society. But these things, though crystallized and set, are nowhere formulated. There is no written or explicitly expressed code ... ... not to say that a "scientific" documentation of the structure of the culture being studied should be forgotten about. But rather instead of being the main point of concern (as with Malinowski) it should be used to strengthen the arguments expressed by the author. Also as done with many other forms reflexivity should be able to be expressed in more abstract ways instead of just simply stating how you were effected and vice versa. But overall I think reflexivity is a good thing for Anthropological writing. In conclusion, anthropology has come long way in the past few generations, at least in the sense of the writings produced by the students of this field. But perhaps this is due to the audience who reading the works and not the anthropologists doing the research. In any case reflexivity is definitely more openly expressed in the more modern works of Anthropology.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
How Social Capital is Viewed by Different Communities Essay -- Social
Introduction The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast two different papers that highlight how social capital is viewed by different communities in any given society. The first article titled â€Å"Social Capital and Civil Society†was published in October 1999 by Francis Fukuyama from the institute of Public Policy, George Mason University. Fukuyama (1999) explores to examine in a wider context what social capital is? It’s key function in the free market, how social capital is measured and finally makes suggestions on how social capital can be cultivated for the good in any given society. In the second article titled â€Å"What is Social Capital and why is it important to Public Policy?†was published in 1998 by Robert E. Lang and Steven P. Hornburg from the Fannie Mae Foundation. The authors highlight that social capital has a clear link to government housing and urban policy formation and argue that the lack of social capital has a clear affect to community stability and housing provision. By using Robert Putman’s concepts and comparing six different articles on social capital the author’s further see the increase to social capital to an area has a high effect to the community and improves the lives of many people that are living in deprived areas of the society. Brief Outline Articles Article One â€Å"Social Capital and Civil Society†published in October 1999 By Francis Fukuyama from the institute of Public Policy, George Mason University. Fukuyama (1999) defines social capital as the cooperation of a group of people that are mainly formed by two or more people. He goes further to claim that the formation of the group can be between two very good friends or be more complicated like in the formation of religious group b... ...l suggested by â€Å"globalisation†where the involvement of the community is made not just for capital gain but by ideas of culture. In conclusion this two articles even though different and written for two different audiences, prove without a doubt the theoretical concept behind social capital whether the focus is in housing, public policy or civil society, an enhanced social capital within a community can generate good to any given society. Bibliography Fukuyama F., (1999). Social Capital and Civil Society. The Institute of Public Policy. Web. March 1, 2016 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm Lang R.E, and Hornburg S.P (1998) What is Social Capital and why is it important to Public Policy?. Housing Policy Debate. Vol.9, No.1, pp1-16. Web. March 6, 2016 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10511482.1998.9521284
Stem Cell Research Essay -- Argumentative Science Scientific Essays
Stem Cell Research Imagine a world where every day scientists create human beings, cultivate them for a week, and then destroy them. This scenario sounds vaguely familiar to the creation of Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s book Frankenstein. The difference between the creation of Frankenstein and the creation of human beings is that the latter has already become true as scientist are creating and destroying embryos. Scientist today even in the United States are creating human embryos and then destroying them when performing stem cell research, but the government does not fund these scientists. Now think of a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or paralysis. Would you deny them a life without suffering if the cure for the disease could be obtained by performing research on an aborted fetus already destined for destruction? It is my belief that scientists should be able to do stem cell research within carefully defined moral parameters because this research is so promising to cure so many diseases and teach us so much about how our bodies work. However, embryos destined for destruction should be used for stem cell research rather than created embryos because there are several thousands of embryos that will be destroyed so it is not necessary to create more embryos and destroy them. Stem cell research remains highly promising in that â€Å"Animal research suggests stem cells may some day provide a way to repair or replace diseased tissues and organs†and it holds immense possibilities for cures of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, paralysis, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes (The Lancet par. 1). These are diseases for which scientists have been searching for cures unsuccessfully for several decades. Adults who were pa... ...ve that the government should fund tightly regulated stem cell research. It is completely unnecessary for scientists to create embryos to merely destroy; however, I fail to see the problem in using embryos destine for destruction for a greater good. These embryos have already be robbed of their life, so by being used for research they provide others with the blessing of a wonderful and healthy life. By federally funding research done on embryos, the society will not be continuing in the way of the complete degradation of society. The American people will benefit through the improvement of their health and the vast knowledge that they will acquire about their bodies and the way they work. Works Cited 1.Miller, John J. â€Å"Hard Cell: The Push To Experiment On Human Embryos.†The National Review. April 5, 1999. 5. Online. Infotrac Expanded Academic.
Friday, August 2, 2019
Domestic Violence in the Lgbt Community
Domestic Violence is fundamentally different in LGBT relationships for numerous reasons. There are many causal and contributory factors that make domestic violence in the LGBT community uniquely different than male-to-female or female-to-male battering. To understand these differences one must recognize domestic violence beyond the stereotypical heterosexual manifestation. According to A Professional Guide to Understanding Gay and Lesbian Domestic Violence, same-sex battering mirrors heterosexual battering, but same-sex victims have fewer resources and are less protected.Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-gender victims. Making matters worse is the fact that in some states sodomy is still considered a crime which forces a victim to confess to a crime in order to prove a domestic relationship. Many women’s shelters refuse services or safety to same-sex victims. Since same-sex marriage is not legal, many families are not considered â€Å"real fami lies†in the eyes of the law, making it more difficult for these victims to get help. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons LGBT domestic violence is so different is found in the unique communities of LGBT people.LGBT communities â€Å"provide social forums, rites of passage, rituals for celebration, and bodies of art and literature that combat isolation and allow us to explore our full potentials (Bartlet, 1993). †Because many LGBT people feel shunned and excluded from the American ideal, they have forged their own communities as refuge from the inequalities and persecution of mainstream America. The tools a batterer uses to maintain control, like power and control, cut across all lines of gender identity and sexual orientation, but a batterer’s behavior is always peppered with community influences.Batterers play on their victim’s vulnerabilities and community values to maintain control. The volumes of hate, hostility, and condemnation directed at L GBT people from mainstream America encourage self-loathing and internalized homophobia. It covertly forces isolation and creates a false sense of safety from within the community. And LGBT batterers manipulate those difficult realities to employ highly effective weapons against their partners. So community is a strong contributing factor to domestic violence in the LGBT community.The Frustration-Aggression theory of domestic violence adds another distinction to LGBT domestic violence. In essence, this theory opines that human beings can become violent when their goals are blocked. For gay male and female abusers, this theory is painfully true. Throughout childhood, before sexuality begins to develop, gay youngsters, like everyone else, think about and plan their future selves. They negotiate a life path within the frames of family, community, society, and the culture in which they live.In early adolescence, when sexuality comes to the fore and one’s homosexuality is questione d, those dreams of family and community begin to feel too exclusionary. This can be a time of tremendous stress; the sense of being inherently different and â€Å"bad†can be overwhelming. All the evils about homosexuals one has likely heard in the media and around the family can be internalized, and begin a pattern of self-hate and destruction. All adolescents ask the question, â€Å"Who am I? †, but for the adolescent homosexual it becomes increasingly more difficult to recognize that one is not necessarily growing up to be the person he originally imagined.And the person he is becoming is reduced to villainy by mainstream America. He begins to realize that many of his life goals are blocked, like marriage and basic human rights. Without a strong support system to negotiate and redefine his identity, this can be a traumatic and damaging experience. But family support is often lacking and positive gay role models are scarce. Coming out in adolescence is often a terrif yingly alone experience that can damage the soul and lead to frustration and anxiety that will carry on into future relationships.Coming to terms with second-class citizenship in the families, communities, and society in which he has imagined himself so abundantly different can result in frustration and feed the self-hate that has already started seeping in. And anger develops when certain fundamental goals are blocked. With such rite-of-passage circumstances as these, it is no wonder that domestic violence happens in 39% of gay male relationships (Merrill, pg. 44). A psychological aspect that contributes to the escalation of Domestic Violence in the LGBT community can be associated with the term heterosexism.Many use the term heterosexism to describe an individual who strongly believes in heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relationships are described as being attracted to the opposite sex and being in intimate contact with only the opposite sex. Heterosexism is used in correl ation to negative attitudes, bias, and discrimination of those who favor same sex relationships. The reason why this term is becoming associated with same-sex relationships that involve domestic violence is due to the use of power and control related to the term heterosexism.The power and control that ensues from heterosexism being used could be easily be described as â€Å"outing the victim in the abusive relationship. †One gathers an idea of the victim’s â€Å"out†status within the individual’s work, friends, and family relationships. Inquiring if the victim has told those he or she cares for about his or her sexual preference usually does this. Knowing this information is beneficial to the abuser because it will allow the abuser to control what the victim will say to the police, or anyone, about any abuse that would exist in the relationship.The contradiction of this term would exist within the abusers identity. The abuser would use the victimâ€℠¢s fear of exposure against that individual as if it would be a bad thing to come out to those who care for and love the victim. The abuser will use ideology related to bigotry slanders, faith, natural law, or popular beliefs as a weapon to keep this victim in the cycle of abuse. Same-sex female domestic violence is an unspoken problem in the lesbian, bisexual, transgender population.Facts about lesbian domestic violence, myths within the population and services are all misconceived reasons why female domestic violence is such a big issue. There is not a lot of data on female same-sex domestic violence. Therefore, most information is taken from heterosexual domestic violence cases and small population samples from the lesbian community such as women’s festivals and lesbian cruises. Within the lesbian, bisexual, transgender community domestic violence is taboo. A fact from the Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet is 17 – 45 % of lesbians have reported being involved in a t least one case of abuse (Rose, 2000).Lesbian victims of abuse are fearful of speaking out for reasons of being judged and pushed out by the lesbian community as a whole. The lesbian, bisexual, transgender communities within a certain area can be small. Unpleasant public allegations ostracize the person and take away community support. Lesbians have few choices of where and how to get help and support, yet the numbers of lesbians affected by domestic violence is about the same as the number of female victims in heterosexual couples (Pattavina, 2007).Types of abuse in female same-sex domestic violence is similar to heterosexual couples, such as hitting, pushing, slapping, disrupting sleep, having sex when one doesn’t want to, and not talking to one another. Behaviors in female same sex domestic violence also include â€Å"jealousy, controlling, becoming involved too quickly, unrealistic expectations, blaming others for their feelings, and hypersensitivity†(rainbowdome sticviolence. itgo. com).A difference is that in a small-knit community, fear of losing support from family and friends isolates and potentially prevents the victim from getting help or even reporting the abuse (Hassaouneh, 2008). But the fear of being â€Å"outted†if that partner is recognized in public, at work, or by the family as being a lesbian is a homophobic fear that hampers the victim in leaving or getting support (Hassouneh, 2008). There is also the isolation within minority groups of lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders.Lesbians often have less support in terms of cultural, ethnic, and religious background to turn to in time of difficulty, like domestic violence (Pattavina et al. , 2007). Especially in cultures where women are not as valued as much as men, it can lead to feelings of discrimination within one’s own community. There is a myth among the lesbian community that a utopia exists. The myth about â€Å"lesbian utopia†is that women are sensi tive, nurturing, caring, and get along better because of those reasons. Lesbian utopia is just that, a myth. Women do hit, hurt, and violate other women.Another myth about female intimate partner couples is that there is a more masculine â€Å"butch†woman and a more feminine woman in the relationship. That is not always the case. Yet another myth is that the â€Å"butch†or masculine women is the batterer. Again that is not always the case. A big myth is that female same-sex violence is not as dangerous or serious as heterosexual or gay male couple’s domestic violence (Hassouneh 2008). Violence is violence regardless of who perpetrates it. Female intimate partner abuse is under-reported (McClennen and Gunther, 1999).Many lesbians are afraid of losing the only support system they have (Miller et al, 2000). It may be that the perpetrator is their only support system and there is no knowledge of whom or where to turn for help. Then there is the lesbian who does re port and she, the victim, ends up getting arrested (Hassouneh, 2008). The misinformation among law enforcement about how to identify the victim in same-sex domestic violence cases is not always cut and dry (Miller et al. , 2000). There are perpetrators that act as victims.The larger of the two women may get arrested even if she is not the masculine one in appearance. Or the more masculine-appearing woman does get arrested although she may be the victim. There are not always services for women who are lesbian, bisexual, or transgender in the community (Hassouneh, 2008). Either, shelters don’t accept women from the lesbian, bisexual, transgender community or there is no legal standing within the state to substantiate a crime. Many states do not recognize same-sex relationships therefore there are no laws in regards to protection.Many victims in female intimate partner relationships may have experienced violence from a heterosexual relationship in the past. Also â€Å"lesbian i ndividuals are more likely to experience domestic abuse at the hands of their partners than to be exposed to antigay violence perpetrated by strangers†(Pattavina et al. , 2007). A study done by Blaise Fortunata and Carolynn Kohn (2003) of 82 participants, 25 being batterers and 57 non-batterers, states batterers were more likely to have been victims of sexual and/or physical abuse in their childhoods. Also, there was a higher use of drugs and alcohol among batterers.The study suggested some personality traits a batterer would have, such as â€Å"antisocial, aggressive, borderline, paranoid and delusional†(Fortunata and Kohn, 2003). These traits would be seen as lacking in the areas of â€Å"poor boundaries, impulse control, problem solving, affect regulation, along with fear of abandonment, jealousy, low self esteem and an inflated sense of entitlement†(Fortunata and Kohn, 2003). Although Harvey Wallace, the author of the class textbook, would say that there a re not any specific characteristics that would describe an abuser. Wallace then goes n to cite factors by other researchers that backup what was depicted in the Fortunata and Kohn study. Factors or characteristics such as the abuser having â€Å"abuse in the family of origin, low self-esteem, male superiority, authoritarian personality and copes by minimizing the abuse†are Wallace’s (2008) examples. The first step in getting treatment as a victim is to accept that the victim is a victim. Reaching out for help, looking up shelter phone numbers and calling them, or getting a plan together for when the victim needs to get out are some good first steps (rainbowdomesticviolence. itgo. com).Educate the victim in how to create a safety plan by putting personal items such as birth certificate, credit cards, and medications all together so one can leave quickly (rainbowdomesticviolence. itgo. com). Have clothes and hygiene products available in the car or at a friend’s house. Give the victim time to regroup. Her life has been turned upside-down, and the healing process will take a while. When examining homosexual relationships, meaning male-to-male relationships, we see that studies as a whole indicate they have higher rates of promiscuity and violent behavior than heterosexual couples.We must rely on studies for more accurate rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples because much of the abuse is under-reported. Under reporting is due to largely the same reasons we have discussed about why lesbian victims fear asking for help from law enforcement, friends, or family. The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of domestic violence victimization in the homosexual community. It focused on four geological areas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The study resulted in 2,881 complete interviews (Merrill, pg. 23).In these interviews the men answered highly personal questions under strict confidentiality. This was a large groundbreaking study that has been the cornerstone of homosexual domestic violence research. It was revealed that 39% of those studied reported being battered by their spouse at least once in the last five years. This figure was much higher than heterosexual women victimizations at 11. 6% (Merrill, pg. 44). Men infected with the AIDS virus were more at risk for psychological and physical abuse than their HIV negative peers, and were more likely to be victimized in a sexual manner (Merrill, pg. 1). Solid research like this helps to open our eyes to a real problem with homosexual domestic violence, and it needs to be addressed. We need to de-sensitize law enforcement officials and set up more support for homosexual victims and therapy for perpetrators. There is a direct link between high rates of promiscuity and partner violence because cheating is common. Having multiple partners outside of the relationship can dilute the quality of the relationship; furthermore, it blurs boundary lines. Promiscuity commonly leads to jealousy, which in turn leads to emotional and physical abuse (Cruz, pg. 60). The sexual relationships of gay males are plagued with domestic violence, just as lesbian and heterosexual relationships are. There are many similarities and differences when considering the factors that go into domestic violence when looking at gay males versus lesbians and heterosexuals †¦ lets take a look at a few of them. As discussed before, lesbians have a fear of being â€Å"outted†when others are alerted to the abuse happening in their relationships. Gay males who have not fully come out of the closet have this same fear, which may cause them to not report abuse by their spouses.However, HIV rates run much higher in the gay male population than in the lesbian population, and perpetrators have been known to blackmail their victims with the threat of revealing their HIV- positive status (Cruz pg. 164). In terms of law enforcement and ho w it often handles cases of LGBT domestic violence, they stereotypically see the bigger or more masculine partner as the perpetrator, which often times sends the victim to jail. Police are primarily responsible for enforcing domestic violence laws. Legal agencies, in general, are conservative, and many don’t try to conceal their homophobia.This trait begins with the police, and goes up through criminal justice system. The DA’s, judges, and probation officers have their own social biases, which often do not support gay and lesbian victims. This is especially problematic for criminal prosecutors who enforce victim protection orders. The patriarchal nature of our society makes it difficult for law enforcement to enforce domestic violence laws. This heterosexual bias also reflects the resistance of the prosecution and judicial systems to prosecute same-sex offenders. The vagueness of the mandate to law enforcement personnel allows a great deal of discretion on he part of t he individual officer in the disposition of a domestic violence investigation. â€Å"The lack of systematic training on this issue for police officers heightens the idiosyncratic enforcement of laws. The unpredictable nature of the police response represents a significant deterrent to reporting domestic violence among gay/lesbian/bisexual families. This occurs despite the fact that as a matter of policy, preferred arrest policies do exist in many states and localities. These policies suggest that the preferred response to a report of battering is to make the arrest. There are many resources designed to support the LGBT community. Yet, in researching policies of domestic violence issues, one will find one story after another about the fear surrounding reporting these instances to authorities. It appears that these networks provide the majority of support for many issues, and that those in the LGBT community cannot and perhaps, should not report instances of domestic violence to the police. In conclusion, it is important to remember both the similarities and the differences between heterosexual and LGBT domestic violence.Despite the fact that the same dynamics of power and control are evident in both forms, the sexual orientation of the partners, the effects of the battery, and certainly, whether there are ample helping resources should the victim decide to reach out have everything to do with how the perpetrator chooses to maintain that control. It is essential that we recognize domestic violence in all our communities. And it is essential that we build community-specific strategies to end domestic violence in all its forms.
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Large industrial facility Essay
1. Describe how the use of a tall smoke stack might improve air quality near a large industrial facility. Tall smoke stacks built 500 ft or taller can improve air quality for a large industrial facility, by â€Å"releasing air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides high into the atmosphere to help limit the impact†to the near by areas (Air, 2011, p. 2). The use of tall smoke stack is also believed to contribute to a wider spread of air pollutants. 2. How can topography contribute to pollution in a city or region? Topography and weather are big contributors to a city pollutions. Most cities are built in a valley and not on top of a mountain, which makes it hard for the air to circulate. This traps the pollution into an area resulting in a poor air quality. (Factors, n.d.) 3. From where do hurricanes derive their energy? What factors tend to weaken hurricanes? Would you expect a hurricane to weaken more quickly if it moved over land or over cooler water? â€Å"Hurricanes derive their energy from the warm, tropical oceans and by evaporating water from the ocean’s surface. Heat energy is converted to wind energy when the water vapor condenses and latent heat is released inside deep convective clouds†(Ahrens, 2014, p. 341). Hurricanes can weaken more quickly if it moves over cooler water, because they get their energy from warm tropical oceans. 4. Where is the Bermuda high located during the summer and fall? How might the path of a hurricane, moving toward the west from Africa, be affected by the Bermuda High as the hurricane approaches the United States? During the summer and fall the Bermuda high forms over the Atlantic Ocean. Hurricanes moving toward the west from Africa may increase its intensity as it approaches the United States. The Bermuda High â€Å"not only heats up summer-time temperatures in the East, but the Bermuda High can affect the intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes†(Bermuda, 2013). 5. How do you think pollutants are removed from the atmosphere? Does this occur quickly or slowly? Pollutants in the atmosphere can be removed by trees and plants. The trees and plants absorb CO2 and other pollutants, then produce oxygen for the atmosphere. The removing of pollutants in the air is a slow progress and some pollutants never go away. Ahrens, C. D. (2014). Essentials of Meteorology: An Invitation to the Atmosphere, 7th Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781305439733/id/ch11-L3-5 Air quality. (2011). GAO. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11473.pdf Bermuda high is cause of most east coast summer heat. (2013) Weather Bug. Retrieved from http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?story=8263 Factors affecting air quality. (n.d.) BC Air Quality. Retrieved from http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/air-quality-factors.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)