Poem and Short Story Essay Example for Free

Poem and Short Story Essay Mill of the Gods (Estrella Alfon) Among us who lived in Espeleta – that street that I love, about whose people I keep telling tales – among us, I say, there was one named Martha, and she was the daughter of Pio and Engracia. To all of us, life must seem like a road given us to travel, and it is up to Fate, that convenient blunderer, whether, that road be broad and unwinding, or whether it shall be a tortuous lane, its path a hard and twisted mat of dust and stones. And each road, whether lane or avenue, shall have its own landmarks, that only the traveller soul shall recognize and remember, and remembering, continue the journey again. To Martha, the gods gave this for a first memory: a first scar. She was a girl of twelve, and in every way she was but a child. A rather dull child, who always lagged behind the others of her age, whether in study or in play. Life had been so far a question of staying more years in a grade than the others, of being told she would have to apply herself a little harder if she didn’t want the infants catching up with her. But that was so dismal thing. She had gotten a little bit used to being always behind. To always being the biggest girl in her class. Even in play there was some part of her that never managed to take too great a part – she was so content if they always made her â€Å"it† in a game of tag, if only they would let her play. And when she had dolls, she was eager to lend them to other girls, if they would only include her in the fascinating games she could not play alone. This was she, then. Her hair hung in pigtails each side of her face, and already it irked a little to have her dresses too short. She could not help in her mother’s kitchen, and could be trusted to keep her room clean, but she was not ready for the thing her mother told her one night when she was awakened from sleep. It was a sleep untroubled by dreams, then all of a sudden there was an uproar in the house, and she could hear her mother’s frenzied sobbing, and it was not sobbing that held as much of sorrow as it did of anger. She lay still for a while, thinking perhaps she was dreaming, until she could hear her father’s grunted answers to the half – understood things her mother was mouthing at him. Then there were sounds that was clearly the sound of two bodies struggling in terrible fury with each other. She stood up, and like a child, cried into the night. Mother? She wailed the word, in her panic finding a little relief in her own wailing, Mother? And she heard her mother’s voice call her, panting out, saying, Martha, come quickly, come into this room! Martha got up and stood at the door of the room, hesitating about opening it, until her mother, the part of a terrible grasp, said Martha! So Martha pushed in the door, and found her mother and her father locked in an embrace n which both of them struggled and panted and had almost no breath left for words. Martha stood wide – eyed and frightened, not knowing what to do, just standing there, even though she had seen what it was they struggled for. A kitchen knife, blade held upwards in her mother’s hand. Her arms were pinioned to her sides by her husband, but her wild eyes, the frenzy with which she stamped her feet on his feet, and kicked him in the shins, and tried to bite him with her teeth, these were more terrible than the glint of that shining blade. It was her father who spoke to her saying urgently, Martha, reach for her knife, take it away. Yet Martha stood there and did not comprehend until her mother spoke, saying No, no; Martha, your father deserves to be killed. Then it was Martha who realized what she was to do, and slowly, hesitantly, she went near them, her fear of both of them in this terrible anger they now presented making her almost too afraid to reach up for the knife. But reach up she did, and with her child’s fingers, put her mother’s away from the weapon. And when she had it in her hands she did not know what to do with it, except look at it. It wasn’t a very sharp knife, but its blade was clean, and its hilt firm. And so she looked at it, until her father said. Throw it out of the window, Martha and without thinking, she went to a window, opened a casement and threw it away. Then her father released her mother, and once her mother had gotten her arms free, she swung back her hand, and wordlessly, slapped him; slapped him once, twice, three times, alternating with her hands, on alternate cheeks, until her father said. That’s enough, Engracia. And saying so, he took her hands in his, led her resisting to the bed, and made her sit down. And Martha was too young to wonder that her father, who was a big man, should have surrendered to the repeated slapping from her mother who was a very small frail woman. Her father said, â€Å"Aren’t you ashamed now Martha has seen? † And immediately her mother screamed to him, â€Å"Ashamed? Me, ashamed? I’ll tell Martha about you! † Her father looked at Martha still standing dumbly by the window out of which she had thrown the knife, and said, â€Å"No, Aciang, she is just a child. † And to her: â€Å"Martha, go back to bed. † But now her mother jumped up from the bed, and clutched at Martha, and brought her to bed with her. And deliberately without looking at Martha’s father, she said, Martha you are not too young to know. And so, the words falling from her lips with a terrible quiet, she told Martha. The words that were strange to her ears, Martha heard them, and listened to them, and looked from her mother to her father, and without knowing it, wetting her cheeks with her tears that fell. And then her mother stopped talking, and looking at her husband, she spat on him, and Martha saw the saliva spatter on the front of the dark shirt he wore. She watched while her father strode over them, and slowly, also deliberately, slapped her mother on the cheek. Martha watched his open palm as he did it, and felt the blow as though it had been she who had been hit. Then her father strode out of the room, saying nothing, leaving them alone. When her father had gone, Martha’s mother began to cry, saying brokenly to Martha, â€Å"It is that woman, that woman! † And making excuses to Martha for her father, saying it was never completely the man’s fault. And Martha listened bewildered, because this was so different from the venomous words her mother had told her while her father was in the room. And then her mother, still weeping, directed her to look for her father and Martha went out of the room. Her father was not in the house. The night was very dark as she peered out of the windows to see is she could find him outside, but he was nowhere. So she went back to her mother, and told her she could not find her father. Her mother cried silently, the tears coursing down her cheeks, and her sobs tearing through her throat. Martha cried with her, and caressed her mother’s back with her hands, but she had no words to offer, nothing to say. When her mother at last was able to talk again, she told Martha to go back to bed. But it wasn’t the child that entered who went out of that room. And yet the terror of that night was not so great because it was only a terror half – understood. It wasn’t until she was eighteen, that the hurt of that night was invested with its full measure. For when she was eighteen, she fell in love. She was a girl of placid appearance, in her eyes the dreaming stolid night of the unawakened. She still was slow to learn, still not prone to brilliance. And when she fell in love she chose the brightest boy of her limited acquaintance to fall in love with. He was slightly older than herself, a little too handsome, a trifle too given to laughter. Espeleta did not like him; he was too different from the other young me n on the street. But Martha loved him. You could see that in the way she looked at him, the way she listened to him. Martha’s pigtails had lengthened. She now wore her braids coiled on the top of her head like a coronet, and it went well with the placid features, the rather full figure. She was easily one of our prettier maidens. It was well that she was not too brilliant. That she did not have any too modern ideas. The air of shyness, the awkward lack of sparkling conversation suited her Madonna – like face and calm. And her seriousness with love was also part of the calm waiting nature. It did not enter her head that there are such things as play, and a game. And a man’s eagerness for sport. And so when she noticed that his attentions seemed to be wandering, even after he had admitted to a lot of people that they were engaged, she asked him, with the eager desperation of the inexperienced, about their marriage. He laughed at her. Laughed gently, teasingly, saying they could not get married for a long time yet; he must repay his parents first for all that they had done for him. He must first be sure to be able to afford the things she deserved. Well turned phrases he said his excuses with. Charming little evasions. And if she did not see through them while he spoke them, his frequent absences, where his visits had been as a habit; his excuses to stay away when once no amount of sending him off could make him stay away; these but made her see. And understand. And then the way neighbours will, they tried to be kind to her. For they could see her heart was breaking and they tried to say sweet things to her, things like her being far too good for him. And then they heard that he had married. Another girl. And they saw her grief, and thought it strange that a girl should grieve over an undeserving lover or so. She lost a little of the plumpness that was one of her charms. And into her eyes crept a hurt look to replace the dreaming. And Espeleta, with all the good people, strove to be even kinder to her. Watched her grief and pitied her. And told her that whatever mistakes she had committed to make her grieve so, to make her suffer so, they understood and forgave. And they did not blame her. But now that she had learned her lesson, she must beware. She knew her own father as much as they knew about him. And it was in the Fates that his sins must be paid for. If not by himself, then by whom but she who was begotten by him? So, didn’t she see? How careful she should be? Because you could, they said it to her gently, kindly, cruelly, because she could if she were careful, turn aside the vengeance of the implacable fates. And she believed them kind although she hated their suspicions. She believed them kind, and so she started, then, to hate her father. And that night long ago came back to her, and she wished she had not thrown that knife away. Espeleta saw Martha turn religious. More religious than Iya Andia and Iya Nesia, who were old and saw death coming close, and wanted to be assured of the easing of the gates of heaven. Espeleta approved. Because Espeleta did not know what she prayed for. Because they saw only the downcast eyes under the light veil, the coil of shining hair as it bowed over the communion rail. Yet Martha’s mother and father still lived together. They never had separated. Even after that night, when she was twelve years old and frightened, and she had called for him and looked for him and not found him. The next day he had come back, and between her mother and him there was a silence. They slept in the same bed, and spent the nights in the same room, and yet Martha and Espeleta knew he had another bed, another chamber. Espeleta praised Martha’s mother for being so patient. After Martha had fallen in love, when she began hating her father truly then also she began despising her mother. You did not know it to look at Martha. For her coil of braided hair was still there, and the shy way of speaking, and the charming awkwardness at conversation. And Martha made up her earlier lack of lustre by shining in her class now. She was eighteen and not through high school yet. But she made up for it by graduating with high honours. Espeleta clapped its hands when she graduated. Gave her flowers. Her mother and father were there, too. And they were proud. And to look at Martha, you would think she was proud too, if a little too shy still. Martha studied nursing. And started having visitors in her mother’s house again. Doctors this time. Older men, to whom her gravity of manner appealed, and the innate good sense that seemed so patient in her quiet demeanour. Espeleta was now rather proud of Martha. She seemed everything a girl should be, and they cited her as an example of what religion could do. Lift you out of the shadow of your inheritance. For look at Martha. See how different she is from what should be her father’s daughter. But what they did not know was that all of these doctors Martha had to choose someone slightly older than the rest. And where the girl of eighteen that she had been almost a child unschooled, now she was a woman wise and wary. Where the other nurses knew this doctor only as someone who did not like their dances as much as the younger ones, who did not speak as lightly, as flippantly of love as the younger ones, Martha knew why he didn’t. Between the two of them there had been, form the very start, a quick lifting of the pulse, an immediate quickening of the breath. From the very start. And where he could have concealed the secrets of life, he chose the very first time they were able to talk to each other, to tell her that he was not free. He had a wife, and whether he loved her or not, whether she was unfaithful to him or not, which she was, there had been the irrevocable ceremony to bind them, to always make his love for any other woman, if he ever fell in love again, something that must be hidden, something that might not see light. She was a woman now, Martha was. Wise and wary. But there is no wisdom, no weariness against love. Not the kind of deep love she knew she bore him. And as even she him, she found within herself the old deep – abiding secret hate. Against her father. Against the laws of man and church. Against the very fates that seemed rejoiced in making her pay for a sin she had not committed. She now learned of bitterness. Because she could not help thinking of that night, long ago, when her mother had sat on the bed, and in deliberate words told her just what kind of a father she had. It had been as though her mother had shifted on to her unwilling, unready shoulders the burden of the sorrows, the goad of the grief. Espeleta, that was so quick to censure, and to condemn; even Espeleta had taken the situation in Martha’s house as something that could not be helped. And as long as there was no open strife, Espeleta made excuses for a thing that, they said, had been designed by Fate. Martha’s father came home. Acted, on the surface, the good husband. And since he was married to Martha’s mother, so must Martha’s mother bear it, and welcome him home again. Because she would rather he came home, then went to the other one, wouldn’t she? Espeleta cited heavenly rewards. For Martha’s mother. And Martha went to church regularly, and was a good nurse. And still called her father, Father. You have heard that one of course, about the mill of the gods, how they â€Å"grind exceedingly fine, and grind exceedingly slow. † Espeleta hadn’t heard that one, nor had Martha. But Espeleta of course would have a more winded version of it. Anyhow, one day at the hospital, Martha was attendant nurse at an emergency case. A man had been shot. There were three bullets through his chest, but he was still alive. Martha laughed queerly to herself, saying I must be dreaming, I am imagining that man has my father’s face. It was the doctor she loved who was in charge. With a queer dreaming feeling, she raised her eyes to meet his, and was shocked to see him drop his gaze, and over his face steal a twist as of pain, as of pity. They were instantly their efficient selves again, cloaking themselves in the impersonal masks of physician and nurse. It was as if he who lay there beneath their instruments and their probing fingers was any man, the way it could be any man. Not her father. But all while, training and discipline unavailing. Martha said to herself, but it is my father. He died on the table. He never gained consciousness. Martha drew the sheet over his face and form. And watched as they wheeled him out of the room. She still had the instruments to put away and the room to put in order. But this did not take long and when she went out into the corridor, she found her mother weeping beside the shrouded form on the wheeled table. There was a policeman beside her awkwardly trying with gruff words to console the little woman over her loss. Beside the policeman stood also the doctor, who passed an arm around the shoulder of Martha’s mother, saying simply, we tried to save him. Martha joined them, knowing that she should be in tears, yet finding that she had none to shed. It would ease the tightness within her, would loosen the hard knot in her heart to cry. But you cannot summon tears when you feel no grief, and the pain you feel is not of sorrow but of the cruel justness of things. She could not even put her arms around her weeping mother. When the doctor told her that she would be excused from duty the rest of the day, that he would arrange it for her, she did not thank him. She did not say anything for indeed she no longer had any words, nor any emotions that required speech. Or should be given speech. For one cannot say, how right! How just! When one’s father has just died. Her mother and she took a taxi together to accompany the hearse that took her father home. There was a crowd awaiting them. Espeleta in tears. Espeleta crying condolence and opprobrium in the same breath. It was from them – their good neighbours, their kind neighbours – that Martha learned how â€Å"God’s justice had overtaken the sinner. † Colon is not as intimate as Espeleta. For it is a long street and broad street. But where the railroad crosses it, the houses group together in intimate warmth and neighbourly closeness and its families live each other’s lives almost as meddlingly as Espeleta does. And is as avid for scandals as Espeleta is. Among the people in Martha’s house were some from Colon. And it was they who supplied the grimmer details, the more lucid picture. In that other woman’s house – and Martha did not even know the other woman’s name there had existed the stalemate state of affairs that had existed in Martha’s house. Only where in Martha’s house it had been a wife who was patient, in that other woman’s house it had been the husband who had bided his time. And yet the neighbours had thought he had not cared. For indeed he had seemed like a man blind and deaf, and if he raised his voice against his wife, it was not so they could hear it. Yet today, he had come home, after he had said he was going away somewhere. And had come upon Martha’s father in the house, and had, without saying anything, taken out his revolver, and shot at him. Martha heard all these. And thought you know often life seems like an old – fashioned melodrama, guns and all. And yet the gun had not gone off. It had jammed, and Martha’s father had been able to run. And running, even as he seemed far enough from the house to be safe, the gun in the husband’s hand had come right again. The man had gone out in the street, aimed at the fleeing figure. That explained why the bullets had gone in through his back and out through his chest. They said that the street was spattered with blood and where he fell, there was a pool of gory red. The killer had surrendered himself at once. But everyone knew he would not pay with his life he had taken. For the woman was his wife and he had come upon them in his own home. Martha stayed with the kind condolers only a while. She left her mother for them to comfort as best as they could. They would have praises like â€Å"The good God knows best;† they would have words like, â€Å"Your grief is ended, let your other grief commence. † She went to look at her father lying well arranged now in his bier. Already in spite of the manner of his death, there were flowers for him. Death had left no glare in the eyes that the doctor at the hospital had mercifully closed, over the features lingered no evidence of pain. And Martha said, Death was kind to you. In Martha’s room there hung a crucifix. Upon the crossed wood was the agonized Christ, His eyes soft and deep and tender, even in his agony. But as Martha knelt, and lighted her candles, and prayed, in her eyes was no softness, and on her lips no words appealing for pity for him who had died. There was only the glitter of a justice meted out at last, and the thankfulness for a punishment fulfilled. So she gave thanks, very fervent thanks. For now, she hoped, she would cease to pay.

Grammar school Essay Example for Free

Grammar school Essay As I entered the trading post in a small border reservation community I passed two Navajo youth leaning against the wall, one leg propped behind them for support. They wore black tee-shirts, one declaring â€Å"Indian Pride on the Rise,† the other showing a heavy metal rock group â€Å"Twisted Sister. † Both wore high topped basketball shoes and hair free flowing to their shoulders. One spoke to me. â€Å"Hey, are you the lady who is talking to dropouts? You should talk to me. Im a professional dropout. † I did. And to many others. Their stories spoke of racial discrimination and rejection by teachers. â€Å"The way I see it seems like the whites  dont want to get involved with the Indians. They think were bad. We drink. Our families drink. Dirty. Ugly. And the teachers dont want to help us. They say, Oh, no, there is Another Indian asking a question because they dont understand. So we stopped asking questions. † Their stories spoke of the importance and power of families and the Navajo culture. â€Å"I go crazy worrying about my parents. They need me so us Navajo stick together. I feel kinda proud to be a Navajo. † And their stories spoke of academic and social marginalization in their classes and schools. â€Å"It was just like they wanted to put us aside, us Indians. They didnt tell us nothing about careers or things to do after high school. They didnt encourage us to go to college. They just took care of the White students. They just wanted to get rid of the Indians. † This article is about these Navajo and Ute youth who leave high school. In mainstream research the phenomenon of â€Å"dropping out† is commonly defined as an issue of individual failure (see Note 2). Youth â€Å"fail,† either academically or socially, to make it through school. The problem exists not because of deficiencies in the schools but rather because of deficiencies in individuals and families. Youth who leave school are described as deviant, dysfunctional, or deficient because of individual, family, or community characteristics. Solutions reside on remediating or changing youth and families to better â€Å"fit in. † After all, most youth do succeed in school, suggesting evidence of the school as an effective institution. This body of research ignores the barriers institutions themselves create for youth. Another line of research on dropouts has turned a critical eye towards the role the school and structural barriers play in creating the problem (see Note 3). The research reported  in this article follows this line of inquiry. A critical examination of the â€Å"place† of Navajo and Ute youth in their school and community reveals other reasons than just individual failure for â€Å"dropping out. † Structural factors restricting opportunities, in effect, â€Å"fail† youth. The decision to leave school can then be seen, in part, as a rational response to irrelevant schooling, racism, restricted political, social and economic opportunities, and the desire to maintain a culturally distinct identity. There are many similarities between Indian and other kinds of dropouts. In most  cases, the reasons for leaving school are alike. For example, nearly all dropouts say school is boring, teachers dont care, and school will not help them with what they want to do in life (LeCompte, 1987). Many come from substance abusing families. There are, however, differences between other dropouts and these Navajo and Ute school leavers that only become clear when examining the cultural context surrounding these youth. Cultural and structural factors that might be easy to overlook if only examining â€Å"student characteristics† are important in understanding why many Navajo and Ute youth leave school. Specific to this cultural framework are 1) racial and economic relations in the community and school, 2) home child-rearing patterns of non-interference and early adulthood and, 3) cultural integrity and resistance. The Data Base: Master Student List, Questionnaires and Ethnography In the fall of 1984 1 started an ethnographic study of a border reservation community. I looked at interactions, understandings, and strategies related to education, schooling, success, and failure both in and out of school, among and between three culturally distinct groups of adolescents—Anglo, Navajo, and Ute. Presented here is only one part of this ethnography, focused on school leavers. Throughout this article I use the tribal names, Navajo and Ute, in recognition of the distinctness of these two cultures. I use the term â€Å"Indian† in situations which include both Navajo and Ute for simplicity, not for stereotyping. In addition, fictitious names are used for both communities and schools. These results were produced from four data sets: 1) a master data base from school records; 2) ethnographic field notes and collected documents; 3) interviews with a  convenience sample of school leavers, and; 4) a questionnaire. In trying to determine an accurate picture of the attrition rates in this district, a data base was established to track all of the Navajo and Ute students by name who had attended Border High School (BHS) and Navajo High School (NHS) from 1980-81 to the 1988-89 school year. This master list contained attendance data, grade point averages, standardized test scores, dropout and graduation rates, community locations, current employment situations, post high school training, and type of diploma received for 1,489 youth. This list has been verified by official district records, local Navajo and Ute community members, school officials, and the youth themselves. The graduation and dropout rate in this community was determined by following â€Å"cohorts† of youth throughout their school careers. A total of 629 students forming six different cohorts, from the class of 1984 to the class of 1989, from each of the two high schools are represented with complete four year high school records. Students who took either additional years and/or completed alternative high school degrees are included in the total graduation figures.

Effect of Genes on Personality

Effect of Genes on Personality To do what extent do genes influence one’s personality? Personality is, traditionally, one of the most important objects of study for psychologists due to its major contribution to individual differences. Previous research explored the mystery of human personality to some extent, people gradually realize what determines their behaviours, why somebody feel excited in a certain situation while others do not. However, there is still huge debate with respect to various perspectives of personality. First debate is about the definition of personality which is much more complex than everyday uses of this term. It can depend on what psychologists believe about the causes and formation of personality. A generally accepted definition was proposed by Robins who defined personality as the distinctive and relatively enduring ways of thinking, feeling and acting that characterizes a person’s response to life situations (Robins et al, 2007). Furthermore, psychologists also ask â€Å"what causes personality differences?† Why some twins rais ed in the same family could have different personalities while others could have more similar personalities (Bouchard et al. 2001)? It is generally believed that personality is formed under the combing effect of genes and environment (Riemann et al., 1997; Bouchard et al.,2001; Caspi et al., 2002); however, there is no final conclusion about to what extent genes and environment influence personality. Some psychologists suggest that genes could play a more important role in shaping one’s personality than environment (Schuett, 2013), and some believe that the plasticity of personality is lost after the age of thirty, that is, people’s personality remains constant as a result of their unchanged genes (Conley, 1985). In this essay, the influence of genes on personality will be discussed and evaluated in relation to two perspectives: Eysenck’s biological basis personality theory and twin studies carried out by various psychologists (Eave et al., 1989; Bouchard, 1997; Waller, 1999; Jang et al., 1996). One important theory which is still regularly cited today is Eysenck’s biological basis personality theory (Eysenck 19xx, 19xx; Eysenck and Eysenck, 19xx). This theory explains individual differences in personality in terms of genetic factors based on Eysenck’s â€Å"Gigantic three theory†, which is one of the major theories and instrument for assessing personality traits. According to Eysenck’s account, People’s personality traits can be classified according to three dimensions: Neutroticism the extent to which people experience negative emotion; Extraversion the extent to which people prefer to be alone or with others; and Psychoticism the extent to which people are tough-minded. After the description of â€Å"gigantic three theory†, Eysenck states (1985) that there are two major systems responsible for physiological and psychological variations between individuals: the reticulo-cortical which is located in the brain-stem reticular forma tion as well as the reticulo-limbic which is located in the visceral area and which consists of the amygdala, hippocampus, septum, cingulum and hypothalamus (Eysenck, 1985, cited in Matthews Gilliland, 1999). Although mutation can occur, these differences in the cortex are genetically determined. According to Eyseneck (1985), differences in the Reticulo-cortical could determine whether someone is extroverted or introverted, as the reticulo-cortical controls the cortical arousal produced by nerve impulses which determines levels of motivation, emotion and condition depending on either inhibitions or excitations of the cerebral cortex. To illustrate, Eysenck claims that introverts are more likely to be cortically aroused than extraverts, as a consequence, they are likely to generate larger arousal by themselves than extraverts when they are in exactly the same situations such as in a party (EysenckEysenck, 1985, cited in Matthews Gilliland, 1999). Discrepancy between cortical arousa l of extroverts and introverts, which have a genetic origin, means that the former feel comfortable to talk to people in the party because they are seeking external stimulation compensating for their low level of arousal, while the later remain quiet as they have higher level of cortical arousal in their brain and do not need the external stimulation (ibis). Eysenck also accounts for people’s emotional stability in terms of reticulo-limbic activities (Eysenck Eysenck, 1985, cited in Matthews Gilliland, 1999). Reticulo-limbic in the brain controls people’s response to emotional stimuli. Emotional stimuli induces arousability of limbic system. Eysenck states that the brains of neurotic people are more easily aroused than emotionally stable people (ibid). The arousing activities can then be translated into a predisposition to experience intense emotions such as anxiety or sadness. Therefore, when the same event happens to neurotic and stable person, strong arousability could be generated by the brain of the former, as a result, he or she may response intensely either psychologically and physiologically, on the contrast, little arousability is generated in the brain of the later, leading to very few response in return (ibid). A major limitation of Eysenck’s particular biological account of personality is concerned with its testability. The difficulty to test Eysenck’s hypotheses is considerable, especially due to the lack of appropriate technological instruments (MatthewsGilliland,1999). For example, a measure of cardiovascular activity is sometimes used to measure arousal differences between introverts and extraverts. However, the cardiovascular system has a considerable interaction with the respiratory system which could be a confounding variable in this experiment (ibid). It is very difficult for scientists to exclude all confounding variables and reach a valid result, hence it is difficult to verify the relationship between arousability of brain and personality traits. Nevertheless, further experiments carried out by other psychologists offer evidence that Eysenck’s biological theory was not as well substantiated as predicted. To illustrate, associations between extraversion and t onic measures of central nervous system and automatic nervous system arousal are actually much weaker than that were expected from Eysenck’s prediction (ibid.). It is worth considering, therefore, whether there is any other more important factor giving rise to the differences between extraverts and introverts apart from arousability of cortex as proposed by Eysenck. While the genetic account of personality theory proposed by Eysenck (1985) has remained purely theoretical and is difficult to substantiate, more recent research on twin studies also reveals that personality could largely be influenced by genetic factors (Eave et al., 1989; Bouchard, 1997; Waller, 1999; Jang et al., 1996). Twins can be divided into two types: monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. Monozygotic twins come from the same fertilized egg and are, therefore genetically identical. Dizygotic twins refer to twins who come from two separate fertilized eggs and only share half of their genetics. In the study of influence of genetics and environments on personality, twin studies prove to be an important strand of research (Bouchard, 2001). Because MZ twins shared exactly the same genes, it is reasonable to assume that any variation in their personality could be attributed to environmental differences in their upbringing, which indicates, to a certain extent, the possible envi ronmental influence on personality. Meanwhile, DZ twins shared only half of identical genes and most of them are raised in the same environment. Their personality differences could largely be a result of genetic variations instead of environmental influence. In 1989, Eaves et al. carried out twin studies using the â€Å"Gigantic Three†(Eysenck, 1985) as three major personality dimensions and differences between twins’ personality traits( Neuroticism, Extraversion and Psychoticism) were thus investigated. Twin meta-analysis suggested a nearly zero correlation between shared environments and twins’ personality traits for all three traits, while correlation for MZ was twice that for DZ, indicating that genes play an important role in this difference. Eaves et al. then used falconer heritability to describe the heritability of a personality trait based on the difference between twin studies. The Falconer heritability for Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism wa s 0.58, 0.44 and 0.46 respectively, which means around half of one’s personality traits could be inherited from parents (BouchardLoehlin, 2001). While Eysenck (1985) described personality traits according to his â€Å"Gigant three † and proposed a genetic account for them. Costa and McCare (1992) proposed an alternative personality trait theory: â€Å"the Big Five† which classifies personality trait into Extroversion, Neuroticism, openness to experiences, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Neuroticism can be described as the tendency to experience negative emotions, notably anxiety, depression and anger. Extraversion refers to high activity, the experience of positive emotions, impulsiveness, assertiveness and a tendency towards social behavior. Openness to experience represents the tendency to engage in intellectual activities and experience new sensations and ideas. Agreeableness refers to friendly, considerate and modest behavior. Conscientiousness is associated with proactivity, responsibility and self-discipline (Costa McCare, 1992, p.xx). There are psychologists, however, who suggested that the â€Å"Big five model† is a more robust and superior interpretation of personality traits compared to â€Å"Gigantic three†, as it could include wider personality scales in the input data(AzizJackson,2000) and more scientifically acceptable nowadays. Similar twin study of â€Å"the Big five† rather than â€Å"the Gigantic Three† was conducted. Those studies yielded similar results as those for the Giant three (Waller,1999 ; Jang et al., 1996a ; Riemann et al ., 1997), stating that around 40 per cent to 60 per cent personality traits was influenced by genes and the rest of them most influenced by non-shared environment(also 40-60 per cent). Although twin studies(Eave et al., 1989; Bouchard, 1997; Waller, 1999; Jang et al., 1996) has provided a relatively convincing answer for the question to what extent do genes influence one’s personality, studies from different researchers have not always provided consistent results (BouchardLoehlin, 2001). Furthermore, a main limitation of all twin studies is that MZ twins can not be treated as a homogenous group. MZ twins can be further divided into two types: monochorionic MZ twins who share the same placenta and amniotic sac and dichorionic MZ twins who do not. Sharing the same placenta means the twins have the same prenatal environment, which could lead to their higher correlation in personality traits. However, this high correlation was not resulted from similarity of genes but the same prenatal environment. This could be a large confounding variable of twin studies, giving rise to larger proportion of genetic accounts than reality. REF In conclusion, both Eysenck’s biological basis of personality theory and twin studies have revealed that genetics can play an essential role in the formation of one’s personality. However, limitations of these theories and experiments exist and cannot be excluded due to difficulties of current technology. On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that the extent of influence of genes and environment have on personality could be different depending on individuals. For example, people in adverse situations are more likely to change their personalities sharply, while those without big change happened in their lives could keep relative constant personalities. Nevertheless, it is still very difficult to draw a valid conclusion; more research needs to be conducted in this field in the future in order to draw a more valid conclusion. References Chamorro-premuzic, T. (2011). Personality and individual differences (2nd ed.) 46-48. Blackwell: Sussex. Eysenck,H.J.(1981): General features of the modal. In H.J. Eysenck(Ed). A model for personality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Eaves, L.J., Eysenck, H.J., and Martin, N.G.(1989). Genes, culture and personality: An Empirical Approach, Academic Press, New York. Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, M. W. (1985).Personality and individual differences, Plenum, New York. Matthews, G and Gilliland, K (1999). The personality theories of H.J. Eysenck and J.A. Gray: a comparative review Personality and Individual differences 26(1999) 583-626 Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., and Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. J. Personal. 65:449– 475. Tomas J. Bouchard, Jr.,and John C. Loehlin (2001). Gens, Evolution, and Personality. Behavior Genetics. Vol 31 No. 3. Waller, N. G. (1999). Evaluating the structure of personality. In Cloninger, C. R. (ed.), Personality and Psychopathology, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, pp. 155–197 Schuett W, Dall SRX, Wilson AJ, Royle NJ. (2013) Environmental transmission of a personality trait: foster parent exploration behaviour predicts offspring exploration behaviour in zebra finches. Biol Lett 9:20130120.http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0120 Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., and Vernon, P. A. (1996a). Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. J. Personal. 64:577–591.

Ernest Hemingway Essay -- Ernest Hemingway Authors Essays

Ernest Hemingway The writer/artist that I chose to enlighten you with has inspired many writers as well as literature majors for many years. He continues to tickle our imaginations with the legacy that he has left us with. This man was as genuine as you can get. He was loved by many. He made an impact on any life that he came across. This man is non other than, Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway was a free spirit in an unattached sense. He loved adventure, as well as the drink. He was somewhat enterprising and approached life with added enthusiasm. Hemingway was loyal to himself through living life to the fullest, when times permitted. By this I mean, most people have had a few hardships by choices made without addressing an outcome. Yet, it seems that in Hemingway's youth, improper choices did not faze him in the least. He approached every day as if it were anew, forgetting the woes of yesterday. Hemingway was a handsome man, tall and built. He was sensitive, energetic and had a superb toughness about him which made for a solid spirit. He had luck on his side, as well as an imagination that most would love to be blessed with. He could take any situation and turn it into a story that would catch your attention until the very end. One of his sons states, "when you knew my father for a long time in his youth you could only love him and marvel at him, and when you knew him when he got older you could only be sad or bitter- depending on how well you had known him when he was young". ( Gregory H Hemingway, M.D. "PAPA" A Personal Memoir 1976) This tells me that as Hemingway approached the comming of age, he expericanced a somewhat "dry" well. As we all grow older we slow down, as well as become of a more boring state, and it is ... ...n any future writing. Unfortunatly Hemingway found it too hard to go on, feeling forced to suffer from the loss of his one true love, writing. Heminway commited suicide on the morning on July 2nd, 1961. The apple doesnt fall far from the tree. It seems as if the suicide trend had been passed down through the generations of males within his family. If you read closely into his life, you see a man full of passion, and a vitality which many of us only wish to have. Hemingway has set an example within the literary world. He is admired by many and loved by anyone who has had the pleasure of knowing him, or the opporitunity to know the legend himself through his works. Works Cited Hemingway, Gergory H. M.D. (1976). "PAPA, A Personal Memoir." Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Ernest Hemingway Biography>Childhood http://www.lostgeneration.com/childhood.htm

An Inspector Calls :: English Literature

An Inspector Calls "An Inspector Calls" by J.B Priestley is a play about an inspector questioning a family about the suicide of Eva Smith. At the beginning of the play the Birling are celebrating the engagement of Sheila and Gerald. They are interrupted by Inspector Goole who informs them that an Eva Smith has committed suicide. The Birling family all deny an involvement but Inspector Goole manages to piece together the facts that in some way they were all involved in her death. When Inspector Goole leaves they all question whether he was a real inspector or not. Gerald, who had left the house, comes back with the information that he wasn't a real inspector after all. Then at the very end of the play the Birling family receive a telephone call that an Eva Smith has just committed suicide and an inspector will be coming to question them. John Boynton Priestley was on of the most popular, versatile and important authors of his day. Although he never wrote a bona fide masterpiece his work was still highly valued. he wrote sixteen novels but it was as a playwright and political/social thinker that Priestley was especially important. Politically Priestley was a patriotic socialist and he was passionately convinced of the need for social change to benefit the poor. During World War II his weekly broadcasts expressed his faith in ordinary people and he felt that "An Inspector Calls" helped labour win the election after the war (1945). As a socialist Priestley believed that we are all responsible for each other. I think that Priestley has written this play to convince people that his views as a socialist are correct. The fact he wrote the play in 1945 yet set the play in 1912 was so he could make the ideas of Mr. Birling seem ridiculous with the use of hindsight. Mr. Birling talks about how there won't be a war, no problems with worker relations and how strong the Titanic is. All of Birling's ideas are shot down because there was a war with Germany, there was a general strike and the Titanic sank on it's maiden voyage. In turn this makes the Inspector's and Priestley's ideas of socialism seem correct. Priestley also wrote this play to make people realise that they are responsible for their own actions. Some of the characters in the play do not accept the fact that they were partly responsible for the death of Eva Smith. Eric and Sheila knew they had done wrong and regretted their part in her death. Sheila says, "And I know I'm to blame-and I'm desperately sorry." This indicates that Sheila wants to change her ways.

The Emperor?s New Clothes :: essays research papers

‘The Emperor's New Clothes’ is a tale of an emperor who was exceptionally fond of new clothes. Two swindlers came one day and claimed that they were weavers and said that they could weave the finest cloth ever seen. They claimed that the colours and patterns were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made from this material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to anyone who was hopelessly stupid or incompetent. They were paid handsomely to weave this cloth and given a room to work, as the emperor wanted to wear his new robes in an upcoming parade. When they decided that they had finished ‘weaving’, the emperor sent in his ministers to judge the quality of the cloth. The ministers, not wanting to lose their respected positions, told the emperor that it was magnificent when they could not see it at all. The emperor, believing his ministers could actually see the robes, and not wanting to seem a fool, paraded in the streets wearing th e new clothes, which were, of course, non-existent. The public admired the emperor’s clothes, for they too did not want to be labelled fools; only a child came out and said that the emperor was actually wearing nothing at all. Upon this outburst, the rest of the public realized that this was true, and the emperor finished the parade in shame for his stupidity of believing the two swindlers in the first place. One of the morals of this fairytale would be to not succumb to peer pressure. Had the emperor not cared about looking like a fool in front of his ministers, he would have declared that he could see nothing, and would have asked whether the ministers could actually see anything. Another moral would be to always give your honest opinion.

History Unit 2

â€Å"Do you agree with the view suggested in source 5 that the main factor preventing the press from publishing ‘bad news’ during the Boer war was censorship by the military authorities? † Bad news during the Boer war was events such as the mass death which occurred in the concentration camps. Source 5 says that â€Å"some journalists tried to report bad news as well as good, but in the face of military cenecorship, they did not persist†. I do agree with the view suggested by Source 5 because the Boer war was the first to have an official British army censor unlike the Crimean war where the events which went on during then remains questionable .Source 4 seems to agree with the view suggested in source 5 by describing the war as a time for the press â€Å"to conform to every reasonable restriction it may seem desirable for the military authorities to impose†. However, source 6 seems to disagree with both 4 and 5 as it described the war correspondent as becoming â€Å"increasingly jingoistic† this term is therefore describing the press as being fanatically patriotic. Source 4 is primary evidence which was published in 1990 by a real war correspondent, thus making his claim more reliable that â€Å"to write anything detrimental to the national interest† would be going against military regulations.This suggests that there were restrictions placed upon what the press could print that would paint Britain in a bad name, especially the conservative party. Similarly, Source 5 a book published in 2002 leaves the open question as to whether the publisher Peter Browning has been influenced by different thoughts since the war, therefore making the reliability of the information provided in the source questionable. However the content of the source does suggest that there were limits placed upon what the press could published, this is because the military authorities wanted the British people to remain patriotic as implied by source 6.Source 6 was published by The Daily Mail, one of the most best selling newspaper in the country and was particularly enthusiastic about the war, along with this, it may be accurate to suggest that one of the main of this newspaper was to keep sales going by giving the British people what they want to hear and hide the truth in what really happened as suggested in both Source 4 and especially Source 5, similarly to the Crimean war.In conclusion, I agree with the source given by Source 5 as I know that the military authorities did want to prevent the publishing of bad news in the Boer war. Lord Kitchener felt that the press needed to be controlled, this made him introduce the greater censorship during the guerrilla phase of the way which was between 1900 and 1901, which is ironic because the book was published in 1995, painting the war in good light with the press enjoying â€Å"their war through music hall songs†. Therefore achieving its aim of hiding the ‘bad n ews which may have occurred during the 1 History Unit 2 â€Å"Do you agree with the view suggested in source 5 that the main factor preventing the press from publishing ‘bad news’ during the Boer war was censorship by the military authorities? † Bad news during the Boer war was events such as the mass death which occurred in the concentration camps. Source 5 says that â€Å"some journalists tried to report bad news as well as good, but in the face of military cenecorship, they did not persist†. I do agree with the view suggested by Source 5 because the Boer war was the first to have an official British army censor unlike the Crimean war where the events which went on during then remains questionable .Source 4 seems to agree with the view suggested in source 5 by describing the war as a time for the press â€Å"to conform to every reasonable restriction it may seem desirable for the military authorities to impose†. However, source 6 seems to disagree with both 4 and 5 as it described the war correspondent as becoming â€Å"increasingly jingoistic† this term is therefore describing the press as being fanatically patriotic. Source 4 is primary evidence which was published in 1990 by a real war correspondent, thus making his claim more reliable that â€Å"to write anything detrimental to the national interest† would be going against military regulations.This suggests that there were restrictions placed upon what the press could print that would paint Britain in a bad name, especially the conservative party. Similarly, Source 5 a book published in 2002 leaves the open question as to whether the publisher Peter Browning has been influenced by different thoughts since the war, therefore making the reliability of the information provided in the source questionable. However the content of the source does suggest that there were limits placed upon what the press could published, this is because the military authorities wanted the British people to remain patriotic as implied by source 6.Source 6 was published by The Daily Mail, one of the most best selling newspaper in the country and was particularly enthusiastic about the war, along with this, it may be accurate to suggest that one of the main of this newspaper was to keep sales going by giving the British people what they want to hear and hide the truth in what really happened as suggested in both Source 4 and especially Source 5, similarly to the Crimean war.In conclusion, I agree with the source given by Source 5 as I know that the military authorities did want to prevent the publishing of bad news in the Boer war. Lord Kitchener felt that the press needed to be controlled, this made him introduce the greater censorship during the guerrilla phase of the way which was between 1900 and 1901, which is ironic because the book was published in 1995, painting the war in good light with the press enjoying â€Å"their war through music hall songs†. Therefore achieving its aim of hiding the ‘bad n ews which may have occurred during the 1