Language programs in NYC Personal Statement Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Language programs in NYC - Personal Statement Example Therefore, the state requires students to learn foreign languages before moving to colleges. The exam conducted ensures that students’ skills at navigating are tested through conversations. The foreign language area for Regent diploma is a brilliant idea but it can not apply to all the students. Majority of the students under this program get to school when they are older. For example, Fanta Konneh goes to school at the age of 18 (Medina 1). She is the first one to step into a classroom from their family. The classrooms in the New York City are full of students with diverse educational challenges from the entire world. Approximately 15,100 students out of 150,000 in the City are always struggling in order to learn English like Fanta. These students are often illiterate in their indigenous languages. Due to these challenges, they are forced to study as their peers gets ready for the exams necessary for Regent diploma. This means they will take more time to be prepared for the same exams unlike other

The theme of Steinbeck's The Chrysanthemums Essay

The theme of Steinbeck's The Chrysanthemums - Essay Example Steinback explores the feminist approach in this short story. Summary of ‘The Chrysanthemums’ Steinback weaves a tale of a passionate woman, Elisa who lives in a male-dominated society. Elisa Allen lives with her husband in her ranch and is his helping hand. Elisa is shown as women more intelligent than her husband but being a woman, she cannot hope to become her husband’s equal. Elisa’s intelligence is matched with her passion towards the ranch, especially towards the Chrysanthemums that she plants. But even with all her intelligence and passion, she cannot guide her husband to improve upon the ranch. Her husband generally ignores her passions and treats her more like a sibling or a friend. Another man enters Elisa’s world, the tinker. The tinker is a person who has travelled much and matches Elisa’s intelligence. He woos her by complimenting on her Chrysanthemums and Elisa becomes attracted towards him. His attention towards Elisa, even thou gh is proved false in the end, makes Elisa aware of her own sexuality as she watches her naked reflection in the mirror after the tinker leaves (Steinback, 1995). However, Elisa is brought back to the realities of the male-dominated world when she finds that the tinker threw away the Chrysanthemums, she offered as a gift, after leaving the ranch. Theme of ‘The Chrysanthemums’ Gender Inequality is the main theme of the book and other themes are secondary to this theme and help support the actual theme. The book is set in the 1930s when males were given the ruling hand just because they were male. Females, on the other hand, were expected to be subservient and their use in the home was to help the husband. Steinback, uses this novel to point out the prevailing gender inequality at that time. Even though Elisa was more passionate about the ranch and had the aptitude to growing beautiful Chrysanthemums, she was not able to guide her husband towards any improvement in the ra nch. Even if she provided any suggestions, they were merely ignored by her husband. This was either because he did not expect her to come up with good suggestions or because he was not interested in making any changes. It is not just Elisa’s husband who gets to lead his life his own way but also the tinker who visits the ranch. The tinker lives an adventurous life, a life that Elisa envies because he gets to see the whole world and the beautiful flowers within while Elisa is only confined to the ranch. She cannot leave the ranch because females at that time were not allowed to leave her homes on such adventurous journeys without their husband. In the case of Elisa, her husband would not have been interested. Thus, Elisa is forced to live her life according to the wishes of her husband, while it is obvious there is so much more that she could with her life. Another theme in the short story is the sexual fulfillment of females. The society during that time was constructed on id eals that were not ideal for the females. Sexual fulfillment was only considered the right of the males while females were just necessary partners in the activity. It is clear that the relationship between Elisa and her husband is more fraternal instead of a husband wife relationship. The arrival of the tinker in the ranch awakens sexual feelings within Elisa and Steinback here makes a point that women are as likely to have sexual feelings as men; and that sexual feelings are so powerful that they make people behave in foolish ways. The passionate and robust nature of Elisa hints at a sexual person

DISCUSSION BoARD Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

DISCUSSION BoARD - Essay Example Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having one. Whistle blowing is a practice that asks of an individual or a group of individuals to speak against the system in a quiet manner. This individual or the group comes out in the open by revealing the facts which may not be known to anyone at a given time. Whistle blowing is an important element that comes under the ethical constructs. This is because it directly forms a link with whether it should be bracketed under ethics or not. However, for the sake of understanding the organizational concerns, business ethics has to be taken into consideration in order to have a good knowledge of whistle blowing as its ramifications are manifolds and should always be judged from a number of angles and perspectives (Roper 2005). The reasons why an employee would rather refrain from reporting potentially unethical behavior to their management concerns in the organization is because they are wary of the consequences that might arise from the same. They would rather put such issues under the carpet be cause taking it far would not help the cause of anyone, as per their thinking. They fear awkward scenarios to crop up for all the wrong reasons. It is important that a corporation develops an ethics hotline that taps anonymous concerns without revealing their identities. It will make sure that the ethical issues are analyzed, discerned and implemented from a solution-oriented point of view. Hence the advantages outnumber the drawbacks since it benefits the concerns of the people at large. You are a high level manager for a corporation that has recently expanded into the global market. You have been asked to manage an interdepartmental team that will help you to create a global ethics training program. Imagine that your team has very little, if any, experience with ethics training or international management. Create a memorandum to your team that explains the need for an ethics training program, the

A close focus on act III of The Crucible Essay Example for Free

A close focus on act III of The Crucible Essay The play, The crucible, shows how people react to mass hysteria caused by a group of people, as people did during the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. The House un-American activities committee searched for communist sympathisers because they were felt to be a threat to the state. Many Americans were wrongly accused of being communist sympathisers and were convicted and sentenced without any real evidence of them having committed a crime. Mere suspicion was classed as evidence. And like the during the witch hunts, anyone who spoke out was accused which made defending yourself a death wish. This is how McCarthyism was linked with the witch-hunts that had taken place in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. The title of the play describes exactly what was happening at the time of the witch-hunts. A crucible is a container in which metals are heated to extracted the pure element from impurities, and crucible is another word for a cauldron that witches use to brew their magic potions in. So the word crucible could metaphorically be used to explain how the activities in Salem were like a potion brewing in a cauldron with the potion being mixed to separate the witches (impurities) from the good, god-loving citizens (element). The opening scene of the play shows the girls dancing in the woods around a cauldron, they are spotted by Parris who also sees that one of them is naked.  The people of Salem were Puritans and so dancing was perceived as a sin.  The morning after the dancing, two of the youngest girls cannot wake from bed. A doctor is called to help the girls but he cannot diagnose what is wrong with them or how they can be helped, His only advice is to look to the unnatural. The girls do not confess to their activities until Parris confronts them. Abigail says all that they did was dance and strongly denies that any of them were naked, Uncle, we did dance. There is nothin more. I swear it, uncle. Mrs Putnam, the mother of the other ill child, believes that her daughter Ruth and Parriss daughter Bettys illnesses are caused by the devil. Parris calls for Hale who is an expert on demonic arts  Parris is the minister of the Village, much to the Putnams dismay. Mr Putnams brother was in competition with Parris for the position of minister and so the Putnams have a grudge against not only Parris, but the Nurse family who prevented him from being minister and many of there neighbours for various reasons. Especially with Giles Corey who has worked out that the Putnams will do anything to get their hands on other peoples land, This man is killing his neighbours for their land! John Proctor also has a grudge against Parris. Hale arrives in Salem, He is a confident and well education young man who believes he has all the answers. As he is examining Betty Giles Corey distracts him by asking him questions about his wife. Giles says that his wife reads strange books whilst they are in bed and while she is reading, he cannot pray. Hale carries on trying to help Betty with little effect. Parris tells Hale that he thinks he saw a kettle in the grass with the girls in the wood with something moving inside it. Hale questions Abigail but she denies that she drank blood and called the devil. Abigail then realises that if the truth is found out she will get in a lot of trouble and so she passes the blame onto Tituba, Parriss black slave, by saying that Tituba forced her to drink blood and even blames her wicked dreams on the slave. Tituba confesses to save herself from being hung. She mentions four peoples names that she supposedly saw with the devil. Abigail mentions more and more names and then the rest of the girls join in, mentioning the names of anyone they hate, have a grudge against or just dislike. As the girls cried out more names, the hysteria began to grow.  By accusing others of witchcraft they are diverting attention away from their original misdemeanours. We can see that the Proctors relationship is not very strong, they make petty small talk over dinner and dont appear to be happy together. One reason for this may be that Elizabeth has not forgiven John for having an affair with Abigail whilst she was ill.  Whilst Mary was at court with the other girls where people were being tried for witchcraft she made a poppet for Elizabeth. Abigail was sitting next to Mary whilst she made it. By now 39 women had been arrested and Goody Osborn was sentenced to hanging.  Mary, who had always been a very shy, timid girl was now becoming very easily led along by Abigail and just as confused between fact and fantasy as the other girls and. This is apparent when she tells the Proctors that Sarah Good had confessed to having made contact with Lucifer, and that Sarah Goods spirit tried to choke her in the courtroom. Mary then speaks of even more fantasy when she says that terrible stomach pains had been inflicted upon her when she had turned the old woman away whilst she was begging. Mary also accused the old woman of mumbling a spell to her, but Sarah Good claimed it was not a spell, it were her commandments. The court asked her to repeat the commandments, but she could not.

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?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   .   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?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   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.†Ã‚   (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)  Ã‚   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.   Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   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.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   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   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   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   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   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.

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.

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.