Howard Gardners Theory of Multiple Intelligence Research Paper

Howard Gardners Theory of Multiple Intelligence - Research Paper Example Before discussing the theory of Multiple Intelligences in detail, let us get a brief introduction of the theorist, Howard Gardner. Howard Gardner was born in the United States in 1943. He got his major education from Harvard University where he studied history, social relations, psychology, and human behaviors. His ideological beliefs and perceptions are influenced by some key figures related to the fields of psychology and sociology. Some of those prominent figures include Nelson Goodman, Jean piaget, Erik Erikson, and Jerome Bruner. Currently, Garner is serving as a professor in Boston University School of Medicine and Harvard University.Seven Intelligences of the Theory Multiple intelligence theory suggests that humans usually have a variety of intelligences that are independent of each other (Marchetti, n.d.). This theory is more humane and veridical as compared to alternative views of intelligence (Gardner, 2006, p. 6). The seven intelligences included in the Howard Gardner†™s Multiple Intelligences model are linguistic intelligence, logical/mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, visual/spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence (Bogin, 2012). Let us discuss all of them in detail in order to develop an understanding of key intelligences.This intelligence refers to the use of language to accomplish certain goals. A person can use language to write something, learn something, and to express his/her feelings to others.  Ã‚  

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens Essay Example for Free

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens Essay Injustice is probably one of the oldest forms of hate known to man. Injustice can be found anywhere and in all forms of life. One of the most well known forms of injustice is slavery. Men and women of all ages and races suffer under slavery still to this day. Romania, for example, has been home to the unfortunate youth who are sold as prostitutes by their own parents! We all know that this is wrong, but society has driven us to not considering this as slavery, just cruelty. Obviously slavery is unjust, but some people to this date still do not know this because of the way they were brought up. However, what was once justified can, upon closer examination, be considered unjust. This was also the case during the revolution in France that began in 1789. Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities described the many injustices that resulted from oppression in France. Injustice during the French Revolution affected everyone touched by it because the revolution claimed many victims on all sides. French peasants suffered, the aristocrats suffered, and innocent people suffered when the Revolution claims its victims. The unjust French government oppressed the poor peasants until they revolted in a bloody uprising. Everyone has a breaking point, and once it was reached, it was very hard to go back to a calm state. It was already bad that Marie Antoinette was using the tax money from the poor peasants to pay for her unnecessary dinner parties. Once Antoinette raised the taxes for that same purpose, it became unjust. This resulted in the beheading of Marie Antoinette. The wine was red wine, and had stained the ground of the narrow street in the suburb of Saint Antoine, in Paris, where it was spilled. It had stained many hands, too, and many faces, and many naked feet, and many wooden shoes. The hands of the man who sawed the wood, left red marks on the billets; and the forehead of the woman who nursed her baby, was stained with the stain of the old rag she wound about her head again. Those who had been greedy with the staves of the cask, had acquired a tigerish smear about the mouth; and one tall joker so besmirched, his head more out of a long squalid bag of a night-cap than in it, scrawled upon a wall with his finger dipped in muddy wine-leesblood (Dickens 37). The wine, which symbolizes blood, was smeared everywhere. This showed how desperate the French were to find some nourishment, even if it meant slurping wine off the city streets. It was amazing how a calm day in France changed into first come first serve madness. Also, the raiding of the Bastille showed how little the peasants could tolerate before retaliating. In this massacre, the peasants overpowered the guards to set the famous landmark on fire. Next, the aristocrats suffer from the united peasants uncontrollable anger and violence. One may wonder how the aristocrats and the peasants suffered at the same time? Before the Revolution, the aristocrats had all the money and happiness, but as the Revolution progressed, this happiness gradually converted into fear. Once the peasants realized that they made up the majority, they took advantage of this. The peasants anger drove them to imprisoning and killing every rich person in sight. Innocent people were killed just because they were rich. Aristocrats had no chance of survival because they were hated most. Anyone who worked for the government or even believed in what it stood for lived in a life of fear. The Marquis from A Tale of Two cities was too ignorant to realize that his comments bothered the people. This angered the peasants along with how wealthy he was. But one didnt have to be the Marquis to be punished. Any wealthy man returning to France could be considered an emigrant. For instance, Darnay, a wealthy man, was accused of being an emigrant, so he was immediately sent to prison. As you can see, even the wealthy had no protection under the crumbled government. Lastly, innocent people suffer as the Revolution burned out of control. Innocent people, which included relatives of those directly affected, suffer just because of the overgrown madness. A good example of this would be Lucie and her daughter Little Lucie. Madam Defarge (who was probably the biggest reactionary in the whole book) wanted the whole Manette family to suffer just because Darnay (the nephew of the Marquis) married into the family. Luckily, Little Lucie was not hurt, thanks to Mrs. Pross who put her own life on the line just to save the Manette family. Mrs. Pross, who lived a simple, quiet life, suffered partial deafness from the sound of a single gunshot. Many relatives of the aristocrats received death by the guillotine just because of their family ties and heritage. This was not right, but the people were blinded by their madness to even think about who they were killing and punishing. As illustrated, injustice during the French Revolution affected everyone touched by it because the Revolution claimed so many victims on all sides. Thousands of irreplaceable lives were taken during the time of the Revolution. There were no winners in the outcome of the revolution. These few years were some of the worst France had ever seen. The grindstone had a double handle, and turning at it madly were two men, whose faces, as their long hair flapped back when the whirlings of the grindstone brought their faces up, were more horrible and cruel than the visages of the wildest savages in their most barbarous disguises (Dickens 260). Is it ok to do unjust things in the name of justice? Will there ever be an end to injustice in the world we live in? At the rate were going, we may never reach the desired utopia that we dream of.

Study on the A Not B Error

Study on the A Not B Error After being discovered by Jean Piaget in 1954 perseveration tasks became one of the main means of investigation in cognitive development psychology, initially in children and later also in non-human animals. The most known of these is the, so called, A-not-B task, which even after many years of research still elicits debates about its underlying mechanisms. This paper aims to provide a review of existing empirical data in order to answer questions of who and why makes the A-not-B error. The first section of the review will give a theoretical background by describing the classic task used by Piaget, the importance of such experiments. This will provide a clear picture of what the A-not-B error is. The two following parts will focus on the questions of who makes the error and why, by an analysis of a set of classic experiments. Each study will be analyzed in terms of its goals, results, and what the impact of these findings is. The last part will include general conclusions based on st udies analyses from previous parts. In order to answer the questions stated in the review title, what is the A-not-B error, who makes it, and why?, classic data will be analyzed in order to determine what the best candidates for explanation of the mechanisms responsible for the error are (in the classic A-not-B task). The most convincing hypothesis will be chosen based on its explanatory power (can it explain most of the existing data?) and its relation to other approaches (can it incorporate other ideas?). Publication of the book The Construction of Reality in the Child in 1954 marks the beginning of research on perseverative tasks in infants. The author, Jean Piaget, described many hide and seek games, invented in order to investigate the understanding of permanence of objects in infants and its changes in time. One of these games became one of the most widely used to explore infant cognition, the A-not-B task. The classic example of its procedure involved a 9 and a half month old child called Laurent. Piaget placed him on a sofa and presented him with two hiding covers, one on the right, and one on the left. Then, he placed his watch under the cover A, and observed Laurent lift the cover to retrieve the watch. After this hiding and seeking was repeated several times, Piaget hid his watch under the cover B. Laurent watched this action attentively, but when given a choice searched back at the location A. As the author put it, at the moment the watch has disappeared under the garment B, he [Laurent] turns back toward coverlet A, and searches for the object under the screen. From this wrong choice, Piaget concluded that Laurent did not understand the independence of objects from his own actions on them. Since these initial results, the A-not-B error has been continuously studied and proven to be a strong and universal phenomenon in human infancy. However, the underlying mechanisms are still being debated, why the error happens and what it means. What is clearer, are the crucial elements of the task to produce the A-not-B error (Smith, 1999). In the original procedure an infant sits in front of two hiding locations that are highly similar and separated by a small distance. While the infant watches, an attractive object (for example a toy) is hidden in one of the locations, described as A. After a delay (which can vary), the infant is allowed to search for the object by reaching to one of the two hiding locations. This hiding and seeking is repeated several times, af ter which the object is hidden again, but this time in location B. Again, after a delay the infant searches for the object. In this traditional method, 8 to 10 month old infants keep reaching back to the initial location A, thus making the A-not-B error. More recent data suggests that there might be also other important elements of the experiment, including posture of an infant, social context, or who the person interacting with subjects is. Before proceeding to a more detailed analysis of existing A-not-B task data, the significance of such research will be briefly described. Investigations of A-not-B task are important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it provides a clear paradigm to explore the development of infant cognition, how it changes in time. More specifically, it allows investigation how different processes involved in finding the object interact (such as looking, discriminating locations, posture control, and motor planning). Secondly, it also allows comparative experiments when the task is administered to nonhuman animals. Such research allow comparisons of cognitive abilities of different species and how these abilities might have evolved from common ancestors. However, after many years of research there is still no consensus on what is the meaning of the error and what its developmental importance is. The question of what the A-not-B error is has already been answered. The next question is about who makes the error. An answer to this question will be approached by analyzing a selection of studies on the A-not-B tasks which investigated human infants (Homo sapiens), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). The predominant group of participants checked on the A-not-B task are human infants of different ages. Diamond and Goldman-Rakic (1989) investigated extensively how the age of infants and the length of delay between observing and searching influences the commitment rate of the error. The experimental procedure was based on the original task, designed by Piaget. However, several differences were also introduced. Instead of sitting freely, infants were held sitting on their parents lap, prevented from turning or looking at the hiding location during the delay. Care was taken to ensure that the infant was observing the whole hiding process. In order to prevent visual fixation on correct hiding location, the infants were distracted by the experimenter calling them and counting aloud. Correct reaches were rewarded by gaining the hidden object (an attractive toy). In a case of an incorrect reach, the experimenter showed the right choice by uncovering the object, but did not allow the infan t to reach for it. Testing for A-not-B began immediately after the infant first uncovered a hidden toy from one of the hiding places. Different lengths of delays between hiding and searching were introduced to the procedure to check what the crucial time to commit the error was. The first introduced delay was a 2 second one. Most infants below 8-8.5 months of age made the A-not-B error at these or smaller delays, whereas only one infant above 11 months did so. The second delay was 5 seconds. By 8.5 months only half of infants made the error at delays of 5 +/- 2 seconds. By 9.5 months half of the infants required delays greater than 5 seconds for the error to appear. The last experimental delay was 10 seconds, where no infant below 8.5 months had passed, whereas by 12 months the average delay needed to be longer than 10 seconds. An interesting observation from this experiment is that infants who maintained visual fixation on the correct hiding location also reached correctly, while t hose who shifted their gaze, failed to do so (performed at chance levels). Another interesting fact is that infants tried to correct themselves when they made the A-not-B error (but not in the youngest ages). To sum up, the A-not-B error occurs in human infants at delays of 2-5 seconds at 7.5-9 months, and at delays greater than 10 seconds after one year. These findings also are consistent with studies conducted by Gratch and Landers (1971) and Fox et al. (1979) which both found that infants of 8 months made the error at a delay of 3 seconds, as well as with a study by Millar and Watson (1979) which showed that infants of 6-8 months could avoid the error when there was no delay, but committed it with delays as brief as 3 seconds. This last finding corresponds closely with Diamond and Goldman-Rakic who found that infants of 8 months will succeed on A-not-B task if there is no delay, but that they will also fail at delays of 3 seconds. Diamond and Goldman-Rakic used the same procedure to investigate ten rhesus monkeys with prefrontal lesions in comparison to monkeys with different brain lesions (parential), and ones with brains intact. Only animals with the prefrontal lesions committed the A-not-B errors at different delay lengths. There was no significant difference in performance between unoperated and parentially lesioned monkeys. Their age ranged from 2 to 6 years. At the delay of 2 seconds, all monkeys with prefrontal lesions committed the error. At the delay level of 5 second results were similar, all monkeys with prefrontal lesions committed the error. At the delay of 10 seconds the performance of prefrontal animals did not meet criteria for the error (such as at least one error in the reversed trial, the error at least once repeated during the same trial), exactly like human infants below 9 months. Behaviour of prefrontally damaged monkeys was noted to be very similar to that of human infants described befo re. The last research analyzed in order to provide an answer to the question of who commits the A-not-B error was conducted by Topà ¡l et al. (2009) on dogs, wolves, and human infants. In a series of experiments a behavioural analogy between human infants and dogs was found. The goal of the research was to investigate the functional nature of dogs sensitivity to communicative cues in a comparative framework, by the use of the A-not-B task. In one of the experiments dogs were shown to be influenced by the communicative context in their perseverative erroneous searches for hidden objects at a previously repeatedly baited (with a toy) location A, even when they observed the object being hidden at a different location (B). Such results are highly similar to those found in human infants. The task involved looking for a hidden object that the dogs saw being hidden behind one of two identical screens. The first phase consisted of the dog being allowed to repeatedly fetch the object (toy) from behind of the screens (location A). In the test phase, the experimenter hid the toy behind the alternative screen B. Dogs managed to fetch the hidden object correctly in all screen A trials. The main result from the test phase is that dogs in the social-communicative trial (the hider attracted the dogs attention) committed the A-not-B error more often than animals in the non-communicative (hiding with experimenters back turned toward the dog) or non-social (experimenter stayed still while the object was moved between screen by another experimenter, not visible to the dog) version. Additionally, animals in the non-social condition were significantly more successful than chance during the test phases. To sum up, the error was eliminated when the hiding events were not accompanied by communicative signals from experimenters. Dogs were shown to be influenced by the communicative context in their perseverative erroneous searches for hidden objects at the previously repeatedly baited loca tion A, even when they observed the object being hidden at a different location B. Such results are highly similar to those found in human infants. Thus, the A-not-B error was proven to also exist in dogs. Naturally this analysis does not exhaust all existing research on perseverative tasks. However, the aim of this review is to focus on A-not-B error only, in its classic version designed by Piaget. Other species, investigated in different variants of perseverative error tasks, included chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata), cotton-top tamarin monkeys (Saguinus oedipus) (Hauser, 1999), as well as magpies (Pica pica) (Gà ³mez, 2005). After the data of who makes the A-not-B error was summarized, an analysis of the underlying mechanisms should follow, to answer the question of why the error is made. In literature different hypotheses are present. Principal of these include areas such as object permanence, memory deficits, information bias, immaturity of prefrontal cortex, and action oriented responses (reaching). The first explanation was provided by the author of the A-not-B task himself, based on his initial research on perseverative errors. Piaget attributed this error to a lack of conception of object permanence in human infants. In his view infants commit the error because they do not understand that an object continues to exist even when out of sight. Their reach back to location A is therefore seen as an attempt to bring that object back to existence. This is the first, historical explanation, which has been disproved by various studies. For example, Baillargeon (1987) has shown that some young infants (3.5-4.5 months) might have some understanding of object permanence. When watching possible (a screen rotating and stopping at a box behind it) and impossible events (a screen rotating as though there was no box behind it), infants looked longer at the impossible ones, which can be understood that they were not expecting them to happen. Similar results were also reported by Ahmed and Ruf fman (1998), where infants who made the A-not-B error in search tasks looked significantly longer at impossible events than possible ones in a non-search version of the task. Such behaviours required a comprehension that when objects are out of sight, they continue to exist. Infants did not expect the object to be retrieved from a wrong place and therefore they had to understand in some sense where the object was actually located. Such results call into question Piagets claims about the age at which object permanence emerges. An alternative explanation focused on memory as a factor responsible for the error occurrence. In her research, Diamond (1985) found that different delay lengths between hiding and object searching affected the rate of the error. Thus the conclusion was that the recall memory was causing the A-not-B error. However, such view was challenged by Butterworth (1977), who found that use of transparent covers in hiding locations does not decrease the error rates, which is inconsistent with the recall hypothesis. Seeing an object underneath a cover should create no need of using the recall memory and lead to the error not being committed, which did not happen. This study also can be used to argue against the hypothesis that competition between different kinds of memory is responsible for the error. Harris (1989; after: Ahmed Ruffman, 1998) proposed that infants make the A-not-B error because of two memory traces in combination with poor attention. In this view, information about the object at location A is held in the long-term memory, whereas information about the object at new location B is kept in a weaker short-term memory. However, the fact that infants continue to make the error even when provided with clear cues of the object location (transparent covers), suggests that the underlying cause is not related to memory issues. Another classic explanation placed the difficulty on the encoding of information. Bjork and Cummings (1984) suggested that encoding at new location B requires more processing (is more complex) than encoding repeated location A because B must be distinguished from A. Sophian and Wellman (1983) also referred to information selection, where prior information was mistakenly selected over the new information about location B because infants forgot current information (which relates strongly to the short-term memory limitations) or because infants did not know that current information should take over. These findings again can be debated in light of the transparent covers study by Butterworth (1977) and the violation-of-expectations study by Ahmed and Ruffman (1998). With the use of transparent covers, encoding new information does not pose major cognitive challenge since the desired object is visible all the time. The proposition of infants not knowing which information should precede is enough ambiguous in itself (what know means in this context, do adults know which information from their environment should be the most valid one?) and is additionally contradicted by the findings that infants look longer at unexpected retrieval of objects from old locations. Therefore, they behave as though they know where the object is currently hidden. All of the hitherto presented hypotheses have met their nemesis data. At this point, two major explanations of the A-not-B error will be presented that yielded wider acceptance. One of them, supported by neuropsychological literature, is the importance of the prefrontal cortex, especially its relation with perseveration and inhibition. The prefrontal cortex is an anterior part of the frontal lobes of the brain, which is often associated with planning behaviours, decision making, and moderating social behaviour. As Hauser (1999) states it, the act of perseveration (a repeated production of particular action or thought) often represents the consequence of a particular cognitive problem, related to inhibition. In order to prevent perseveration such mechanism is required to reject some alternatives while favouring others, which may involve activation of the prefrontal cortex (Kimberg et al., 1997). Infants, therefore, are highly susceptible to the commitment of the A-not-B error because of their immature prefrontal cortex. The research by Diamond and Goldman-Rakic (1989) provided the first evidence that A-not-B performance depends upon the integrity of the prefrontal cortex and that maturation of this region underlies improvements in the task performance in human infants between 7.5 and 12 months of age. Further support comes from other groups of subjects of this study. Monkeys with lesions in the prefrontal cortex also committed the error, whereas monkeys with brains left intact, managed to choose the correct location B. As the authors noticed, the A-not-B task performance of operated monkeys and 7.5-9 month old human infants was highly comparable (both groups made errors at delays of 2-5 seconds). This significance of the prefrontal cortex can be explained by analyzing two main abilities required for the error to occur, which depend upon the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: temporal separation and inhibition of dominant response (Diamond Goldman-Rakic, 1989). The A-not-B task requires subjects to relate two temporally separate events: hiding cue and searching action. With no delay between hiding and searching even 7.5-9 month old human infants and prefrontally operated monkeys can manage to choose the correct location B. However, even when a brief delay (2-5 seconds) is introduced, they start to fail in object searching. Therefore, the aspect of delay plays a crucial role in committing the A-not-B error. This disadvantage can be overcome when subjects are allowed to maintain visual fixation or body orientation towards the new location during the delay. A similar effect is created by a visible cue which consistently indicates the correct choice (for example a mark on one of the locations). Those two findings indicate a possible involvement of short and long-term memory in the process of committing the error. In the case of fixation on the correct choice, a representation of this choice does not have to be held in short-term memory, and in th e case of learning an association between a landmark and a reward, the long-term memory is activated, guiding reaching behaviour accordingly. This brings back the argument about the role of memory in explaining the A-not-B error. The second ability stemming from the prefrontal cortex, the inhibition of dominant response, is mostly related to the act of reaching for the hidden object. In the A-not-B task subjects are first repeatedly awarded for reaching to location A, which leads to strengthening of this response. However, such conditioned tendency to reach to A must be inhibited in the test trial if the subject is to succeed and reach correctly to new location B. The fact that subjects reach back to location A even when they appear to know where the object is hidden (by looking there) or should know where the object is placed (transparent covers with visible toys), adds validity to the notion that inhibiting the conditioned response is difficult and that memory might not play a maj or role in explaining the error (the problem is not simply forgetting location of an object). Even when the object is hidden, human infants and operated monkeys will often immediately correct themselves if their initial reach was incorrect. It appears therefore that subjects know the object is hidden in location B but still cannot inhibit the initial response of reaching to the previously rewarded location A. However, human infants often look in the direction of the correct hiding place, even when simultaneously reaching to the wrong one. It seems that the act of reaching itself might cause troubles, which relates to the next major explanation of the A-not-B error. Smith et al. (1999) advocated a change in theoretical debates on possible explanations of the A-not-B error. Their explanation focuses on performance and behaviour during the task, which is described as reaching to successive locations in visual space. Errors are made by returning to an original location when the goal location had changed. Reaching to a place consists of a series of ordered steps, beginning with cognition (perceiving the target, forming a goal) and ending with action (selecting a motor pattern, forming a trajectory of the reach). The proposition states that the A-not-B error is mainly a reaching error, emerging from a directional bias to location A created by previous looking and reaching, and because the visual input available to guide the reaching hand is insufficient to overcome the bias (similar covers close to each other, not fully developed reaching skills of 8 to 10 month old infants). Crucial to this hypothesis is the idea of a continuous interaction between looking, reaching, and memory of previous reaches. In other words, it is important that there are two similar potential reaching targets and that infants have a history of repeatedly reaching to one of the locations. Results from experiments by Smith et al. experiments indicated that goal-directed reaches of infants stem from complex interactions of visual input, direction of gaze, posture, and memory (therefore indicating strong context effects). Such a system is inclined towards perseveration since it creates the reach based on current visual input and memories of recent reaches. This bias will prevail whenever the new information input is highly similar to previous reach information or whenever the systems memory of previous reaches is strong. Such an effect could be described as a version of a previously analyzed information bias. These general processes of goal-directed reaching are not specific to a particular moment in development, which suggests that older children and even adults are prone to commit the A-not-B error if placed in the appropriate situation. For example, when no visual cues are given, like in the case of hiding objects in sand (Spencer et al., 1997; after: Smith et al., 1999). However, if these processes are not specific to a certain age, why then a decline in making the error is observed? Authors point to two developmental changes that can contribute to an answer: increasing infants ability to discriminate among visually similar locations, and increasing skill in reaching. Although Smith et al. state that there is no discrepancy between their results and data from investigations of the role of the prefrontal cortex, they do not agree with the explanation placing emphasis on inhibition failure in this region of the brain. In such a view, infants reach successfully to the correct location not because a dominant habit to reach to A was inhibited, but because the current visual information biasing the system in the B direction is stronger than the previously conditioned action towards A. Therefore, direction of the infants reach depends on internal and external dynamics shaping the goal-directed action (outside stimuli and previous experience). The goal of this review was to answer the questions of what the classic A-not-B error is, who makes it, and for what reasons. The answer to the first two is a straightforward one. In order to determine who makes the error, it is enough to administer the original procedure devised by Piaget to various subjects (with slight modifications if used with nonhuman animals). The question of why the error is committed has a more complex nature. A range of proposed explanations have been presented, along with an analysis of how valid these hypotheses are in light of existing empirical data. Due to limitations of space, the review has focused on presenting a summary of the main hypotheses: object permanence, memory deficits, information bias, immaturity of prefrontal cortex, and goal-oriented reaching. The two latter possess the largest explanatory power, as they incorporate or explain elements of other approaches. The most important difference between them is present in the definition of who c an commit the error. In the neuropsychological approach only subjects with immature or a damaged neocortex will make the error, whereas in the reaching approach this error is not so limited. Another main difference concerns the concept of inhibition. Described as a main element of the influence of the neocortex on choosing the right location, it is removed completely from the reaching approach. However, certain similarities are also present, since the neuropsychological hypothesis includes the aspect of programming a goal-oriented reach. Considering these characteristics together, as the best candidate for an explanation of the A-not-B task the immaturity of the neocortex will be chosen. It can provide sufficient explanation for why human infants with immature prefrontal cortex, prefrontally damaged monkeys, and dogs make the error. In the case of the latter, the inhibition process might play the major part. Dogs committed the error mostly in the communicative experimental conditio n, which might suggest that overcoming a bias created that way is too difficult, inhibition in the prefrontal cortex (which is often assumed to organize social behaviour) is too weak. Of possible importance is the domestication process, during which dogs were selected to respond to human communicative signals. In terms of Marrs levels of explanation (Humpreys et at., 1994), the prefrontal cortex could be described as planning behaviours in order to act appropriately in the world (computational level), by the use of inhibition processes (algorithmic level) on the neuronal networks (implementional level). Additional empirical data, obtained in order to validate the prefrontal cortex hypothesis, should include studies on infant rhesus monkeys and other infant species, as well as autistic human children (due to their lack of social skills which could be attributed to malfunctioning prefrontal cortex). A set of such data would allow comparisons with existing findings. Naturally, new rese arch might bring a change of focus in mechanisms underlying the A-not-B error, as the issue of perseverative errors is a complex one and requires further investigation.

Oedipus the King Essay -- Classics Oedipus King Essays

Oedipus the King Oedipus the King is the perfect example of a tragedy. It contains a complete combination of all the features of a tragedy. Aristotle in his Poetics[1] defines Oedipus as being 'a definite example of the form and purpose of tragedy'. In tragedies the Greeks dramatized climactic events in the lives of heroes, and Oedipus' story is no exception. By using many different literary devices it brings moral dilemmas of action and motive to the public stage. The action is set out over the timeframe of one day, which will according to the prophet Tiresias will bring Oedipus' 'birth' and 'destruction'. King Oedipus is the central protagonist and within his character lies a tragic flaw. He is unintentionally the architect of his own downfall. The strengths that once lead him to solve the riddle behind the sphinx later lead him to his own downfall. In the words of the priest; 'you helped us stand, only to fall once more'. Oedipus' hamartia is his anger. It lies at the root of the plot. It was fury that lead him to kill Laius. He was about to thrust Oedipus off the road one night, so Oedipus 'paid him back with interest' by murdering him. Another flaw is a persistent desire to discover the truth. His 'mindless stubbornness' motivates him to seek the truth about Laius' killer and who his father is. This search leads to the turn of events that take place throughout the play. Despite constant denial of his fate he cannot deny the work of the gods. Tiresias delivers him a prophecy of this fate. Oedipus' circumstances are far beyond his own control. No matter what he attempts to do or alter every path leads the same way. He finds himself 'always terrified Apollo's' oracle might come true'. However he is determined to seek out the Kings murderer to punish him. This search interlinks with the search for his father. Jocasta also tries to deny destiny believing that 'nothing human can penetrate the future'. She claims to believe that 'It's all chance, chance rules our lives'. However fate inevitably takes over. Through the process of anagorsis Oedipus discovers he is in fact the very criminal he seeks. Along with this he realises further truth in the prophecy, that he is married to his mother. Jocasta also comes to realise the same truth. By the end of the play his final downfall along with hers is inevitable. Tragic iro... ...loins that spawned my wretched life. What grief can crown this grief? It's mine alone, my destiny - I am Oedipus!' These two statements show the peripeteia of Oedipus' life. Once a hero basked in glory, he has now succumbed to his destiny. In turn he is lowered to a truly pathetic state. His altered state serves to highlight the reversal of fortune he undergoes. His tragic flaw leads him to acknowledging his fate. Oedipus' downfall comes as he tries to escape fate but cannot. The audience knows this as does the chorus and we can only watch. Oedipus the King contains nothing outside of the definition; it's just pure Tragedy at the very core. It also confirms to Aristotle's theory of Tragedy. It obeys all the rules and the elements of Tragedy mentioned throughout. These features entwine together to create the ultimate work of Tragedy. From all of this it is unquestionable that the word 'tragedy' is a usefully accurate description of Sophocles' play Oedipus the King. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] W.B. Worthen, The Harcourt Brace Anthology of Drama, 3rd Edition (USA, Harcourt College Publishers, 2000), p 72.

Individual Differences Essay

INTRODUCTION: The individual differences are a cornerstone effective area in modern psychology, it is referred for the psychology of the person that the differences between the individuals and their similarities. 2000 years ago Plato stated that the two persons are born exactly alike but each differs from the other by natural endowments, where one will be exited for occupation purpose and where as other will be for another perspective. According to the western psychology approach to individual differences is assumed as: Persons will be different in range of psychological attributes. It is possible to measure and study the behaviour of an individual. In history we have come across many theories on individual differences that are Psychology, survival of the fittest, by applying the principles of behaviour scientifically and some by the body language principles. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: In this we can classify the people in psychological forms according to their intelligence and personality characteristics. There are many conflicting theories about individual differences psychology. People have been aware of individual differences in history by gender differences, intelligence differences by religion, status and by education etc†¦ and by the personality differences i.e. by their job satisfactions and organisational competence. In modern psychology it has formalised that the individual differs from their values, personality, self-esteem and attitudes. In this contemporary world the individual differences are fully based on the bonds of organisational sequences like birth, education, work and death. Where a French philosopher Jean Jacques Roussean (1712 – 1778) states that â€Å"man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains†. Where the individuals are shaped by the liberty, equality and fraternity. Where individuals is the concept of identity which cannot be defined easily, other than saying that it refers to the person who is in relation with others in this world by the way he constructs, interprets and understand himself and others. In an organization managers understand the individual differences of their employees by their experience, knowledge and technologies. If manager is capable of understanding the differences of individuals then he can achieve the goals of him as well as the organization goals. Even organizations have their distinct identities. Example: There are two  brothers one like pets and other does not like pets, they both being from one family the likes are different. This tells that human tendencies will not be same in form of thinking and admires. IMPORTANT INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: Values Personality Attitudes VALUES: It is defined about the individual or group about their ethical beliefs for something for which they are emotionally attached. It can also be defined as a set of beliefs and goals that serve as guiding principle in one’s life. Where for managers value is the achievement i.e. values for personal success in a social standards, it may be power also where the managers think about their prestige, status and dominance’s over people. Example a manager of well-known organization thinks about his status and prestige and his control over the people for him these are the values whereas for manager of other organization may not be the same. Where individuals give there more priorities to their values which may differ from one individual to other but everyone has their own values and beliefs. PERSONALITY: It is defined as the stabilised patterns and psychological states of the mind, which explains about the behaviour of the person. Example if there are two persons one is Joe who is extroverts and other person Sam who is introvert, people have tendencies to judge Joe as open minded person and he his fully interactive and all without knowing him. So depending upon personality and behaviour the individuals differ. Where Sam who is introvert can be more intelligent than Joe but his personality is introvert so the attraction goes towards Joe. ATTITUDE: It is known as the collection of feelings and beliefs of a human. There are components of attitude which are: Affective component: where it tells about the feelings of individuals. Cognitive component: individuals have different ways thinking. Behavioural component: the behaviour of individual is different from others. Example a manager has different attitude towards his employees where as he has different attitude towards his f amily and friends because in front of employees there will be a question of prestige and status. SELF – AWARENESS: In an organisation if manager develops the self – awareness in  his employees by motivating them then the relationship between the employees will be better and they will be fulfilling the needs of their and organisations also. If a person comes to know about his self – awareness then he will be having a good relationship with others and his thinking will be in positive way towards one another which indeed help the organisation to achieve the goals. If a manager is capable of knowing his self –awareness and taking the feedback from his staff about his work and behaviour if it is in negative form also and improving on that negative things then he is a successful manager. If a manager keeps the friendly environment with his staff by motivating them and talking with them personally and telling to overcome their demerits and encouraging them in front of everyone for their work then the manager can easily achieve his and organizational goals. If a manager keeps his prestige and status aside and works with a team as one of the member of the team then the team members also feel comfort and the productivity will be enhanced and that type of managers are successful managers. THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: This theories are based on the personality of an individual and they are: Trait theory Big five theory Myers – Briggs type indicator theory (MBTI) Socio – cognitive theory Psychoanalytical theory Humanist theory. In this theories the widely used theory is Myers – Briggs type indicator theory (MBTI) which tells about the differences and the similarities of the individual which in turn helps to improvise the self – awareness. This has 4 preferences which helps to know about the individuals that are: Extroversion or Introversion Sensing or Intuition Thinking or Feeling Judgement or Perception. MANAGING DIVERSITY: It is defined as â€Å"the variety of experiences and perspectives which arise from differences in race, religion, culture, mental or physical abilities, heritage, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender  identity and other characteristics†. There are some dimensions which affect performance, motivation, success and interactions with others which is important to understand. Example If you have good relations with your colleagues and with the supervisors of your organisation then you’re managing your diversity. Do you immediately take actions against the people who behaves in a form of disrespect like unwanted talking’s and using offensive terms, if you’re doing this then you are successful manager and with that you are managing diversity. CONCLUSION: This reports says that the individual differences should be accompanied to individual decision to perform organization behaviour. It suggest that if a person follows his value or norms, they would be more likely to perform organizational behaviour. If the managers have the capability to face the problems and come up with the solutions for that problem by team work and forming a self-awareness in his team then the organizations goals can be easily achieved and the manger is successful manager. It says that every individual has his own ethics, values, personality, self – esteem and attitudes and if a person knows about all this then he makes a good relation with his staff and he will be successful human being. REFERNCES: Clegg S., Kornberger M. and Pitsis T. (2011). Managing and organizations. London: Sage. Hickson D. (1997). Exploring Management Across The World. London: Penguin Group. George J. and Jones G. (2006). Contemporary Management: Creating Values in Organizations. McGraw-Hill (in New York).

Integrity in to Kill a Mockingbird Essay

Integrity is having a standard of morals and ethics, and living by them. It is a willingness and ability to do the right thing even when it is hard. The story To Kill a Mockingbird is filled with integrity. For example, many of the people in Maycomb share a prejudiced sense of integrity when it comes to its racist views. However, it is Atticus Finch’s integrity throughout the novel that really embodies the idea of moral and ethical principles. He puts into action every moral idea that he supports. Atticus is a role model to not only his children, but to the whole town of Maycomb, and his integrity is a great part of what makes him such a good example. Integrity breeds integrity. Harper Lee is suggesting that integrity within ourselves helps others to have integrity. Atticus brought up Jem and Scout by example. His show of integrity instilled within his children their own sense of integrity. Both Jem and Scout are exposed to experiences throughout the novel their shape their perception of right and wrong. For example, Atticus took up the case of Tom Robinson not only because he had to, but because he was fighting for an innocent life against injustice and racial prejudice. His display of integrity in Tom Robinson’s case was reflected onto his children. They soon came to know their father as a hero full of moral courage, and did their best to do him right in their own ways. Though they could have fought against their peers insults against them and Atticus, they showed adversity by not reciprocating. â€Å"As it was, we were compelled to hold our heads high and be, respectively, a gentlemen and a lady.†(Lee, pg. 247) Furthermore, Scout shows integrity through her wisdom and compassion that goes beyond her years. Atticus is a strong role model to his children with his strong sense of integrity, and Scout and Jem develop their own integrity throughout To Kill a Mockingbird with his lead. Atticus’s integrity extends not only to his family, but to the whole community of Maycomb. The community of Maycomb was heartedly against Atticus defending Tom Robinson, a black man. Yet, once again, Atticus’s integrity shines through as he stands strong through the adversity. During the trial, Atticus speaks firmly of the truth, and forces Maycomb to examine their conception of race and the equality of man. As Christians, they know that all men were equal. As Atticus finishes his speech, he says â€Å"In the name of god, believe him [Tom Robinson]† (Lee, Pg. 209). In saying this, he is reminding the jury of this integrity they are supposed to uphold. Though Maycomb convicted Tom Robinson, as Miss Maudie said â€Å"We’re making a step-it’s just a baby-step, but it’s a step.† (Lee, Pg.220) She is referring to the fact that Atticus had been able to force the jury to examine their views of race, as they were kept out so long. In this way, Atticus’s integrity got to every person of Maycomb. Another example is when Reverend Sykes says to Scout â€Å"Miss Jean Louise, stand up, your father’s passin’.†(Lee, Pg 215) Reverend Sykes is demonstrating his respect for Atticus by telling Scout to show the same respect. Atticus’s integrity had a strong impact on the black community of Maycomb, and they demonstrated a great deal of their own integrity because of him. Atticus’s integrity reflects onto all of Maycomb county’s citizens. Today’s society can easily relate to the pressures on the individual’s and community’s integrity that is found in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird. Every day peer pressure instils within us the desire to be bigger and better than what we are. The media, how other’s view us, and the pressure put on us by others will all test our integrity on a daily basis. Atticus and his children both had to deal with the adversity against them because of the communities differences in opinion. They kept their integrity through it all with Jem and scout having their father’s moral advice and support to help them. Though many succumb to the pressures put on us, there are also many Atticus’s out there that have a moral and ethical conscience backing them up. They become a role model that breeds integrity through their moral practices. â€Å"Before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.† (Lee, pg.108) To conclude, Atticus is a strong moral figure in the book To Kill a Mockingbird that demonstrates the quality of integrity to the fullest. His integrity helps others to have integrity. To explain, Atticus instils a strong sense of integrity within his children by teaching them by example. Furthermore, his example of integrity also extends to the community of Maycomb, as Atticus forces them to reflect upon their prejudiced racial views. We ourselves are every day tested with our own integrity, and the Atticus’s of the world and in ourselves can help strengthen our moral values. All in all, Integrity within ourselves helps others to have integrity.