Psychological And Social Aspects Of Psychological Criticism

Psychological criticism is a theory that is associated with literature texts which are concerned with the fictional expression of others, the state of mind of the characters, and the aims of the author. Freud (1856–1939) depicts a diagram to explain the system of psychological internal work. This plan is a â€Å"topographical† map that classifies thought into three sorts: conscious, preconscious and unconscious. Later, he assumes the latter as a basic introduction to his theory. In turn, his schemes consider three contradictory forces: the biological, psychological and social aspects. Freud argues that human behavior is controlled by two things: first, the desire for love, that reflects those psychological demands which allow the biological†¦show more content†¦Freud is widely known for his exposure of the Oedipus complex. He said, â€Å"we do things†¦ really weird and silly things sometimes, for reasons that are to some degree hidden, inaccessible, beyond our direct control or awareness† (White 199). Freud’s theories of social thought and motivations have been challenged by modern psychologists and psychiatrists. His beliefs about human motivations can be applied to examining authors and characters in literature. â€Å"The foundation of his contribution to psychology is the emphasis on the unconscious parts of the human psyche† (Guerin 21). Freud changed our ideas of human behavior by discovering new or controversial areas such as wish fulfillment, sexuality, the unconscious, and repression. Freud believed that sexual taboos repress human desires. The repression of desires causes the unconscious to what human wants. He â€Å"examined symbol, to a study in which way the unconscious awareness expressed itself in the coded system to avoid restriction of the conscious awareness† (Kennedy136). Freud specified the state of mental controls in three types. First, there is the id, which is the inherited natural impulses of the individual, the founding part of the unconscious. Then there is the ego, which refers to that part of the human mind which is conscious of self. Through the work of Freud, this part, acted upon by the id and the super-ego, intermediates with the environment that it is affected by. The super-ego has adopted both

Socializing While Homeschooling Homeschooling Essay Example For Students

Socializing While Homeschooling : Homeschooling Essay Socializing While Homeschooling Homeschooling is increasing in the United States. Between the years of 2003 and 2012 homeschooling in America increased from a 2.2 to 3.4 percent, and it continues to increase. Many parents are deciding to homeschool their students because studies show that â€Å"The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. † (Ray) Homeschooled children are achieving better academically but many miss out on one key feature to life, socializing. A couple ways that this could be fixed is to make kids go to public or private schools until 2nd grade, after that they should be in other activities that require socialization, and finally slowly ease them into socializing when they, get a job or go back to public school. I was homeschooled while I was in elementary. During these years I spent most of my time at home. If I finished my schoolwork early, I would go play outside with my siblings. I spent most of my evenings going to my activities such as football, baseball, or taekwondo. I also went to many homeschooling group meetings where I got to meet and talk to many other kids. Even though I spent so much time outside, going to activities with other kids I felt that I had very little amount of friends. Even though after all this time spending with other kids and I never fully knew them. My activities offered very little time to actually talk to the other kids making it difficult to make friends. Since I barely got to talk to these kids I felt awkward when I went back to public schools. Homeschooling has many good qualities behind it. It has been proven in many cases to be better academically, and with many standardized test in modern so. .d children can receive, they are missing something more important; socializing. Many kids while being homeschooled will not socialize enough during their years in school. They are missing out on the development of many people skills, and may not develop for many years to come. They might have a low self-esteem because they haven’t developed that fully, and they may also be shyer than normal children. I was homeschooled as a kid but I am now highly social. I developed all of my social skills because I went to school until second grade and participated in many activities while being homeschooled. I was also homeschooled with my siblings, and when I went back to public schools I started in a small one. Even though I still felt a little socially awkward when I went back to public schools, I adjusted because I was always around people my age even when I was homeschooled.

Lets Make A Deal An Analysis Of The Monty Hall Problem Essays

Let's Make A Deal: An Analysis Of The Monty Hall Problem The Monty Hall problem is derived from a similar dilemma that was frequently brought up on the television game show Let's Make A Deal, hosted by Monty Hall. Though the game show's version usually involved some grand prize and then other smaller prizes to compare it to, the concepts of the two versions are the same. Here is the scenario: There are three doors. One of the three doors is hiding a prize, while the other two are empty or contain something undesirable, such as a goat. The contestant is asked to try and guess which door is the prize door. (If the contestant guesses correctly, he wins the prize.) Once the contestant makes his choice, the host says something like, Are you sure that is the right door? How about this; I'll up your chances and open one of the other two doors. The door is opened to reveal a goat. Now, do you still think the prize is behind your original choice, or would you like to switch to the other closed door? The contestant must make a decision between the t wo doors remaining closed. Here is the big question: Should the contestant stay with his initial selection or should he switch, and does it really matter? This question was brought to the attention of Marilyn vos Savant and plublished in Ask Marilyn, her column in PARADE Magazine. Her reply caused an uproar and she received several letters, many from mathematics professors and probability experts, claiming that her answer was totally false. In her reply, she had said that the contestant was more likely to win if he switched. (I agree with this theory.) The controversy from Marilyn's column spread to other publications and spurred on a huge debate over the probability of winning if the contestant stays with or switches his choice. At first glance, the probability of winning seems obvious. After the host opens one of the doors, two are left closed, each having an equal likelihood of containing the prize. So there is a fifty-fifty chance of choosing the correct door. It does not matter whether the contestant switches or stays, because the probabilities are the same. But if the problem is considered a little more closely, you might change your mind. Here is a different approach to the puzzle: First of all, there are three doors, and the prize can only be behind one of them. So there is a one-third chance that the contestant will get the prize, and a two-thirds chance that he will not get the prize. If the contestant decides to stay with one door, then his chances of hitting the prize will be one-third. Let's say the contestant has chosen a door and it is not the prize door. This has a probability of two-thirds. Then the prize must be behind one of the other two doors. Furthermore, the host will open one of these two doors, revealing the one that is empty. So the prize has to be behind the other door remaining closed. Therefore, if the contestant chooses the wrong door at first (this having a two-thirds probability,) and then switches, he is certain to get the prize. Summing up, if the contestant switches, his odds of winning is two-thirds, and if the contestant does not switch, his odds of winning is one-third. A simple theory, though, does not hold very much importance until it is proven. With this in mind, I ran several trials of different experiments to see if Marilyn vos Savant's assumption was actually true. The first investigation I ran was several trials on a simulation of the game I found on the internet (at http://www.intergalact.com/threedoor/threedoor.cgi). The simulation asked me to pick a door, then it opened another door, and finally asked me to either stay with my previous selection or switch. I played twenty times; ten times staying and ten times switching. The results are shown in Table A. When I switched, I won eighty percent of the time, whereas when I stayed, I only won forty percent of the time. In a separate simulation of the problem on a different web site (at http://cartalk.cars.com/Tools/monty.pl), after completing one

review for A peoples history of the United States essays

review for A people's history of the United States essays What is behind the glorious appearance of the history of the United States? Howard Zinn provided the readers an answer to that question in his book, A People ¡s History of the United States. Different from the textbooks that were always praising how great a country America is. A People ¡s history of the United States gave the readers a brief idea on the cost behind the surface, the lives and people that were lost or forgotten, and the unjustness that was put on various groups of people. Zinn ¡s description of the history of the United States came from a very biased perspective. He wrote down history with an attitude that changed the original facts that would mislead his readers. He wanted his readers to know what facts came before the greatness of America was achieved. How the country was formed from destroying numberless Indian tribes, the discrimination towards the Indians and the colored people and women, and the war that was actually started by the United States with Mexico and taken half of it ¡s country. Americans who took high school history and people in the rest of the world who took world history always looked at these events in a way that the US government only did what they did to accomplish a positive goal. But Zinn saw that the US government was in favor of the business class and was interest only in what would make profit. From the point of view of this book, all the decisions the government made was based on profit, either to expand the country for more land which meant more production or to gain more consumers to buy the products. The book was written to try and see the history of the United States from a people ¡s point of view. If it is said that the textbooks provided in high schools is extremely biased from the view of the government, then this book would be the book that is extremely biased from the view of the working class, the natives, and the colored immigrants. How the people felt about the wars fough...

Astronomy Frontier paper Research Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Astronomy Frontier - Research Paper Example Recent discoveries by the astronomers illustrate that BHs are the major partner to expand the galaxies. Before finding the activities of black holes, it is necessary to mention here the size and shape of BHs. A black hole is observed by three factors: All these three factors, mass, gravity and emission of radiations, are responsible to generate accretion. McClintock is of the opinion that this is common notion among the astronomers that accretion is one of the main originators of the universe. The accretion disks have powerful influence on galaxy. The energy, produced by the motion of accretion disc around black hole, generates stars development, builds or destroys galaxy structure, and reloads the large amount of elements which has a constructive engagement for planet construction. There is a great question, partially answered, that â€Å"what is the actual relationship between galaxy and black hole?† â€Å"Why are the black holes necessary for galaxy?† â€Å"Why do galaxies generate the black holes in it?† The astronomers have discovered that early galaxies (about 4 galaxies) were 30 times large to black holes in them. But every galaxy has black hole in center so it has been concluded that the black hole generates stars around it and then galaxy breeds (Cattaneo and Best 518–523). Practically, almost all the big galaxies congregate a BH in it. The black holes vary in size and mass. It can be in millions of cosmological masses. As the mass and quantity of black holes increase the galaxy gains a great change in it. The activities of accretion discs enable galactic nuclei to gain the heat and eject the heavy gases from it. Jeffrey E. McClintock, Ph.D., Senior Astrophysicist, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, says: â€Å"There is strong evidence that a supermassive black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers believe this black hole is a radio-wave source known as Sagittarius A* (SgrA*). The

Identify and Critically Evaluate Ecotourism Essay

Identify and Critically Evaluate Ecotourism - Essay Example Moreover, less developed countries want to join tourism fever and appeal for investors to get money to their countries. This is where the roots of ecotourism come from. Though ecotourism is rather new field of human activity and it has not still been discovered if it is an aspect of mass tourism or an independent phenomenon of human activity. The interest of the world’s community to indigenous cultures and remote lands predict a great success to ecotourism. Further research is focused on considering ecotourism as aspect of nature based tourism. People are anxious about overall industrialization and technocratic society. They want to overcome their alienation from nature. Ecotourism is a perfect alternative to mass tourism that â€Å"frequently led to resource depletion and negative impacts on the values of local people and their cultural heritage. Pollution and over use, which degraded the beauty of many of the sites, became common occurrences† (Parks and Allen, 2009). Moreover, an important role of ecotourism can be explained by its main advantage – to preserve indigenous nature and remote land. Therefore, a public attention to nature preservation is determined in the framework of recycling programs, emissions reduction laws and regulations and development of nature preservation programs on the global level. ... The root of the problem lies deep inside the appearance of ecotourism as a separate field (Donohoe & Needham, 2006). The term ecotourism appeared in the academic literature in the middle of 80s. Currently, it is a specific field of studies in tourism and a separate sphere of activity that is differentiated from tourism as such. Sometimes ecotourism is perceived in the framework of an alternative tourism (Blamey, 1997; 2001). Therefore, conventional mass tourism may be interpreted as an external environment for ecotourism development. The main part of ecotourism niche is set by different private sector businesses (ecotour operators) and corresponding alternative attractions (e.g. cableways and submarines that make an access to different inaccessible easier). Thus, there is a need for alternative operators and firms mediating ecotourism (Donohoe & Needham, 2006). A level of businesses involved in ecotourism ranges from private small businesses to large transnational corporations. Anoth er important and wide-spread model of ecotourism is community-based model of service provision in this sphere (Donohoe & Needham, 2006). A specific nature of ecotourism raises specific issues for ecotourism operators’ considerations. These are accessibility and low costs of natural resources. From different perspectives, scientists and researchers have found different peculiarities of ecotourism development. In accordance with Donohoe & Needham (2006), the example of South African ecotourism supports the fact that cooperation of ecotourism operators with small communities is a perfect way to reach an enormous success in this sphere of activity. Further on, it is underlined that the more competitive clusters within ecotourism exist, the more successful this sphere is (Blamey,

Assess the case against Moral Elitism Essay Example for Free

Assess the case against Moral Elitism Essay Moral Elitist believe in a metaphysical claim: there are moral facts and an epistemic claim: we have access to them. According to moral relativism, there are no moral principles or values objectively real and applicable to everyone; rather, what’s right/wrong and good/bad essentially depends on individual preference or culture, and this varies from person to person or group to group. There is not just one moral fact but instead there are millions and we access them be research. There are two different forms of moral elitism one is cultural relativism which based on societies and the other is in the individualistic form, moral subjectivism. Moral relativism seems tolerant (â€Å"you do your thing and I’ll do mine†), but is it reasonable to believe? We should think not. First, let’s look at it in its group or cultural form, cultural relativism. According to cultural relativism, ethics essentially depend on one’s culture or tribe. That is, CR says action X is right or good if the society says X is right or good, and X is wrong or bad if the society says X is wrong or bad. Action X may be right in one culture but wrong in another. Our culture may hold that apartheid is wrong, but another culture may be okay with apartheid, because of a difference in the history of interracial relations. On cultural relativism, then, morality is wholly a matter of cultural invention, i.e. social construction and because such circumstances vary from group to group, so do the constructed moralities. Thus, we shouldn’t impose our culture’s moral values on others, and others shouldn’t push theirs on us. There are no better or worse societies, they are just merely different and so one society cannot judge another. Instead we should be non judgemental and celebrate diversity. Cultural relativism sounds good, but is it sound? Let’s assume that cultural relativism is true, this would be very problematic. The biggest problem for this argument is put forward by G.E Moore’s Open Question. He suggests that the relativists have mis-defined morality, it makes to sense to ask whether society approve of something or it, but does this make it automatically good? This ends up giving support to obviously evil regimes and evil cultural practices. For example it becomes impossible to criticize the Nazis. If Nazi culture says that genocide is right, then, for Nazi Germany, genocide is right. It was just their culture, after all. But we know that we can and should condemn such regimes and practices. There is also the criticism put forward by Objectivists who believe in moral development, where sometimes we have to go against the popular view, we need to be able to compare different societies. For example surely the German society now is much better than how it was like with all the racism involved when Hitler was in power. Objectivists believe that societies are a hierarchy where some are in fact better than others whereas cultural relativism believes in breadth where all societies are equal, but surely their tolerance goes too far? If cultural relativism is true, then internal cultural reform is disabled. What the culture says is right is right, so its not possible for ones culture to be mistaken let alone reformed. Yes, one can critique acts according to cultural standards, but its not possible to criticize ones own cultural standards. However they do arise for example Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, they were all trying to apply another standard for example Martin Luther King was trying to apply the standard of equality. The existence of cultural reformers is a fact, and this fact counts against cultural relativism. Cultural relativism also self-refutes. If CR is true, it allows for the possibility of a society having a non-relative or absolute morality. That is, on cultural relativism a society could hold that cultural relativism is false, and they would say that this morality is true. So, if cultural relativism, then it is also not true. This is a serious logical problem. There is also the problem of which culture? The one youre born into or the one you presently occupy? When asking someone what cultural groups they belong in they will struggle as they have loads, for example being a student, a Muslim etc. Now let’s look at moral subjectivism. According to moral subjectivism ethics are merely a matter of individual preference. That is, to say action X is right or good if I like X, and X is wrong or bad if I don’t like X. Depending on our feelings, action X may be right for you but wrong for me. You may not like abortion, but I may be okay with abortion, if my feelings are not as troubled by it as yours are. Morality, then, is basically a matter of taste, and tastes vary. People should choose our own morals and have freedom, not simply just accept our parents, society or religion. They are relative to the individual and so are presented through our personal feelings. Feelings are the main index and guide to show what morals we should follow. However this could result in problems as intra-personal criticism is lost. If moral subjectivism is true, whatever we feel is right is right. In other words, we can never be wrong morally and we cannot criticize ourselves (all we can be is true to our feelings). This does not destroy subjectivism but it serves as a red flag against IR, because our pre-theoretic experience of morality is that we sometimes make moral mistakes, in spite of our feelings. We also cannot criticize others. We can’t truly morally condemn the behaviour of, say, Jack the Ripper clearly liked killing women; the feelings of a person justified their actions. In other words, according to subjectivism: Who are we to judge them? There is also the problem of how are our feeling a reliable guide to right and wrong? Sometimes we can misjudge and feelings can cloud our judgement, for example someone with a bad temper might kill someone by accident due to their anger issues. Also reason can sometimes change our feelings, for example if I am on a diet but I feel like I really want a chocolate ice cream, reasoning about this would convince me not to follow my feelings and opt to eat something healthy instead. In conclusion we have seen the two types of moral elitism. Both are quite sophisticated and a lot more open minded. Surely our feelings mater sometimes when it comes to moral decisions. There cannot be just set moral facts as how would everyone even agree about what they are. When trying to decide what is right and wrong, everyone seems to disagree so surely our feelings and following our own society would lead to our moral decisions. However many problems arise logically from moral elitism as sometimes we cannot choose our own morals instead we are a passive recipient where morals impose themselves on us. Following our society or feelings do not necessarily lead us to what is right or wrong and so it’s reasonable to conclude that individual moral relativism is flawed—logically, factually, and morally as following it will lead to wrong situations where wrong things will be condoned. Therefore moral elitism should be rejected.