Is it the End of the Nature Versus Nurture Debate Essay

Is it the End of the Nature Versus Nurture Debate - Essay Example As observed by France De Waal (1999), the contribution of nature has been enormous and may be justified by advancements in neural sciences. He concludes that the nature V nurture debate must be given new direction. Similarly, Eric Parens (1996) supported the view of remarkable role of behavioral genetics in human behavior and hence he favors the nature theory and seeks to continue the nature V nurture debate. However, Steven Pinker (2004) was of opinion that nature and nurture wont go away and he feels that there will be interaction among several factors of both environment and nature. In this context, all researchers have however agreed that the nature V nurture debate will have political and ideological implications and hence the discussion should be properly regulated. Though it is not proper to state that the nature V nurture debate should be completely abandoned, reorientation of the subject mater is highly needed. Initially support has come to Social Darwinism that is a doctrine based on genetic determinism and natural selection, advocating a laissez-faire capitalist economy and promoting eugenics, racism and the inherent inequality of such a society. Mendel’s laws of genetics and inheritance also supported the theory of nature for human behavior. After 1945, the debate swung in favor of "nurture", with American psychologists taking up a rhetoric of environmental influences on behavior, emphasizing the learning process. In turn, the European school of ethology arose in opposition to the environmentalists, focusing on innate behavior which is of genetic origin. In 1960s in the USA, views were highly favoring nurture theory as all people are capable of producing better performance if given conducive environmental conditions in which to rea ch their potential. Since beginning, psychology was focused as major subject for explaining the nurture theory for human

Study of Dialogue between Nurse and Pneumonia Patient

Study of Dialogue between Nurse and Pneumonia Patient My patient Mrs. S.K., is an 81 year old female. She was diagnosed with Pneumonia. Mrs. S.K. had been in the unit for almost three days prior to the dialogue. She reported not being ever diagnosed with any medical condition ever before. During the morning shift I went with my assigned nurse J to the clients Mrs. S.K room. She was lying in her bed awake. While given her medication, Nurse J mentioned to her that I was a nursing student from York University who would be shadowing her. I took this opportunity to introduce myself and asked her if it was okay with her. She nodded with a smile DIALOGUE: 1 Mrs. S.K was sitting in the chair and looking out through the window. Nurse: Nice view (pointing to the window), How are you doing? (I stood right beside her near the window) Mrs. S.K.: I am feeling much better now. Yesterday, even moving from bed to chair was very exhausting for me. I felt breathlessà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Much better now. Nurse: Hummm, I listened attentively. When did you first notice any changes in your breathing? Mrs. S.K.: I was in U.S at family function. While I was reading our holy book and was almost on conclusion I found really hard to even recite the hymns. My son asked me to get myself checked, I just ignored. I wanted the ceremony to end smoothly without any interruption. Nurse: I nodded to convey I was listening Mrs. S.K.: The journey from U.S. airport to here (Toronto) was very hard. I was coughing constantly. I felt so much tightness in my chest. Nurse: I know how you would have felt. It is hard to go through all this. How did it feel being in such a situation? Mrs. S.K.: I was so anxious and fearful. I did not even know whether I will be able to catch my next breath (pause). I am grateful to God, my family is really caring. They immediately brought me to the hospital. Nurse: So, you have a really caring family. Mrs. S.K.: Yes,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦now I am a great grandmother (She smiled) Nurse: Wowà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.. I smiled back. (Someone knocked at the door, it was her relatives. I introduced myself to them).Your relatives are here, I am going to leave you with them for now so that you can spend some time with them. I will check on you later on. Is that okay with you? Mrs. S.K.: Noddedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Yes. Nurse: See you later Mrs. S.K. (With a smile and I left the room) CRITICAL REFLECTION Through this paper I will critically reflect on the dialogue that I had with my patient -Mrs. S.K, who was admitted to the hospital for pneumonia. In this paper, I will identify blocks to communication in the dialogue and will focus on integrating the principles of dialogue with the client-centered care (CCC) core processes. Prior to beginning the dialogue, my only intent was to know Mrs. S.K. better and to listen to her concerns if any so that I could better meet her needs. It hurts not to be listened to (Nichols, 1995).While critically reflecting on the dialogue I realized that actually I was making an effort to be build trusting relationship with her by giving her my undivided attention. Clients often wait to express their needs and concerns until the nurse gives them undivided attention (Messner, 1993). I initiated the discussion with open-ended question. I asked Mrs. S.K., How are you doing? As a result, she had a liberty to choose whatever she wished to reveal. I also attempted to carry the open-ended question throughout the conversation. I wanted Mrs. S.K. to feel that I was really interested to know more about her health issues or other concerns that impact her health. I think I went with the flow during the dialogue with Mrs. S.K. I did not interrupt in between when Mrs. S.K. talked about her concerns with breathing a day before and her visit to U.S. I followed her lead, listened attentively and patiently to her, as this is what she wanted to talk about. According to the human becoming theory, going with the flow is very crucial in order to recognize the ups and downs and the joys in the context of the clients situation (Parse, 1998). Also, keeping the client- centered care in my mind, most of the time I spoke with my client in her mother tongue that is Punjabi. This made her more comfortable and confident to express her true feelings and concerns. Validating was one of the blocks that were evident during the dialogue with the client. Though, I made proper eye contact with Mrs. S.K. and listened to her in a non-judgmental and caring manner, but I felt that if I would have sat at eye level with her during communication she would have felt even more comfortable. When Mrs. S.K. talked how hard her journey from U.S. airport back to Toronto due to illness, I validated her experience by saying I know how you would have felt. It is hard to go through all this. This is in total contrast to the CCC value of honesty. Each individuals meaning of a particular circumstance is totally unique. Therefore no one can really know or experience the same meaning as the other (Beitel, 1998). Also, when she showed her concern about feeling breathless yesterday, I could have asked her Tell me more about it. This would have helped me to seek depth and clarity about her concerns. Other then that I did not act on the need to do something to fix things my client, neither did I gave her false reassurance. As this was my very first experience of having a reflective dialogue with the client, it was a good learning experience for me. I realized the importance of a good dialogue in assessing the needs and concerns of the client. Openness, good eye contact and genuine interest in the client go a long way in building a caring relationship build on trust. In future dialogue, also I would focus on being truly present with the patient. I will ask open ended questions to get in depth insight about clients concerns. This would help me to better understand a situation from clients perspective. I will not validate clients emotions or experience. Instead I will listen to the patient with openness.

Genetic Engeneering of Food Essay -- Environment Science Debate Engine

Genetic Engeneering of Food Throughout the United States and the rest of the globe, genetically engineered food products are becoming increasingly used in agricultural and manufactured food goods. Because of the increase of genetically altered foods, an increasing population has become hesitant to accept the products and agriculture derived from genetic engineering. The large increase in genetically engineered foods has proved to have adverse health effects on humans. These health risks are becoming increasingly common as we continue to genetically alter foods. The main health concerns of genetic modification include virus spread, antibiotic resistance, and allergen effects. Genetic modification should stop and organic farming should be used instead for the future health of the planet. Provided evidence will support the claim that, genetically engineered food will have lasting effects on the population, the health in each of the provided categories will decline, and world hunger will actually increase with th e high amounts of genetically altered food products. Genetically modified foods are altered through inserting foreign genes or chromosomes to receive a desired trait or effect in the plant. According to Lappee and Bailey (1998) the most common form of genetic modification the chromosomes inside the nucleus which contains the blueprint information for building the plant or fruit. A genetic engineer will identify the chromosome which of the desired trait, which they wish to alter. Inserted into the DNA strand of the chromosome is a gene that the team wishes to modify. Along with the gene is a marker gene which scientists can use to locate the new gene. Together the team of genes is called an insertion package and... .... For the good of the nation and the world it is important for people to know, that they don?t have to eat what corporate business wants them to. Bibliography: Barnett, A. (2000, August 13). What?s Wrong with Our Food? Retrieved March 31, 2002 from web at: http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000813.html Cummins, J. Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Recombination , When and Where? Retrieved March 31, 2002 from web at: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/mosaic-cn.htm Grogan, J. & Long C. (2000). The Problem with Genetic Engineering, Boston MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Lappe, M. & Bailey, B. (1998). Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food. Monroe, ME: Common Courage press. Wolfson, R. Synthetic Genetically-Engineered Bio-Tech Foods Retrieved March 31, 2002 from web at: http://eagle.westnet.gr/~aesclep/bioengl.htm

How does Hill present childish behaviour in I’m the King of the Castle? Essay

Hill presents childish behaviour through the use of dialogue, description and structure. She highlights that childish behaviour is a characteristic of adults, as well as the children. There are numerous examples of childish behaviour throughout the novel, for example when Hooper and Kingshaw fight over a toy, or when Hooper soils himself. One way in which Hill presents childish behaviour is after an incident where Hooper and Kingshaw are fighting over a toy fort: during that fracas Kingshaw chants â€Å"It’s mine, it’s mine!†, Hills use of dialogue is interesting here because the use of a tri colon not only emphasises the intensity of Kingshaw’s emotional reaction, (furthered by the fact he is fighting over a toy) but also echoes that chant like whines of small children. The importance of this line is signalled through the use of italics, which suggests that there is a degree of stress on Kingshaw whilst he speaks, again like a child. Another way that Hill explores childishness in the novel is through her description of Hooper soiling himself: Hill describes a â€Å"dark damp stain† of pee in the groin of Hooper’s jeans†. Hills use of the word â€Å"stain† portrays an image of dirt and even disease to the reader, the reader is hence disgusted. Furthermore the reader can perceive the word â€Å"pee† to relate towards a lack of control, like a child. What is interesting to note is that the word â€Å"pee† is highlighted before the more scientific word â€Å"groin†, this highlights Kingshaw’s childish nature. This quote fits in the context of this novel because it is based upon power struggles between two children; Hill exposes the fact that although Hooper is initially presented as a powerful figure, he is still a child. Finally Hill not only presents the children in I’m the King of the Castle as childish, but also presents the adults as childish. It can be argued that when Mrs Helena Kingshaw â€Å"felt a little ashamed of not wanting to take Charles with her†- she is behaving in a childish manner. Hill uses the words â€Å"not wanting† to portray Mrs Kingshaw as a selfish individual, oblivious of her sons’ needs; this is arguably a childish quality. Hill’s use of juxtaposition highlights the phrase â€Å"not wanting†, her selfish qualities prioritise over that of her own son: this is especially self, and comparable to little children. Mrs Kingshaw also displays a lack of empathy, as shown in the previous quote: young children also have a lack of empathy until they grow older, and hence this quality is a childish quality. In conclusion Hill presents childishness or immaturity in the novel through her use of dialogue, description and structure. Hill emphasises childish behaviour that is associated between Hooper and Kingshaw, but also points out the adults are equally susceptible to such behaviour. Perhaps she is criticising parenting styles to show the reader the negative impact it can have on children. Her use of parallel structure is also ironic as it suggests that such negative qualities are passed on through generations. However, the parallel structure can also be reparative and predictable at times.

Gravametric Quant Lab Report

Quantitative Analysis Gravimetric Determination of Iron as Fe2O3 Laboratory Experiment 2 February 19, 2013 Abstract: In the Gravimetric determination is the measurement of mass in two different forms precipitation and volatilization. In our experiment we will be using the precipitation form which isolates an ion in a solution by a precipitation reaction, filtering, purifying by wash method, conversion to product of known composition, and final weigh of the product comparing the mass difference of theorictal and actual. This method identified the weight percent of iron in an unknown sample.Three samples are taken to limit percent error. In the results of the three samples 1 had a percent of 10. 764 Fe (III), sample 2 had a percent of 11. 725 Fe (III), and sample 3 with a percent of 12. 216 Fe (III). The average sample percent was 11. 568 compared to given amount percent of 12. 90. In theory with a loss of 1. 332 this experiment was overall successful. Introduction: In this lab the pur pose was to use the gravimetric determination procedure to identify the weight percent of iron in an unknown sample. Three samples were collected and analyzed.Iron can be analyzed by precipitating the hydrated iron oxide from a basic solution. After the basic solution is hydrated the process is then followed by complete dehydration to give solid iron oxide. Methods and Materials: Needed in the experiment was; * Crucibles, Metal rings, Wire triangles, Burners, Funnels, Filter Paper, Beakers, Glass rod, Diluted ammonium hydroxide solution, Nitric acid solution, Silver nitrate solution, NH4NO3 solution, Distilled water. Below are some methods used in experiment. fig. 1 fig. 2 Experimental Procedure: This experiment was a multiple session lab.Obtain three crucibles and desiccator. Bring the three porcelain crucibles and caps to constant mass by heating to redness for 15 minutes over a burner, use fig. 1 for method reference. Place the heated crucibles in the desiccator to cool for appro ximately 30 minutes and weigh. This was left overnight and completed the second trial in the next session with successive weighing agreed within 0. 30mg. (Keep constant numbering with crucibles throughout experiment) We measured out 1. 5g of three samples of the unknown that was given to us. Each sample was dissolved in 10 mL of 3M HCl (with heating necessary). mL of 6 M HNO3 was obtained to filtrate, and boil for a few minutes to ensure that all iron is oxidized to Fe (III). The samples was diluted to 200mL with distilled water and add 3 M ammonia with constant stirring until the solution was basic (as determined with pH indicator paper). After solution becomes basic, digest the precipitate by boiling for 5 minutes and allow the precipitate to settle. We then decanted the supernatant liquid through coarse, ash less filter paper (Whatman 41 or Schleicher and Schuell Black Ribbon, as in fig. 2 -18 and 2 -19 in textbook. ). Keep liquid lower than 1 cm from the top of the funnel.Our pr ecipitate was first washed repeatedly with hot ammonium hydroxide solution, by miscommunication. Then washed with the corrected heated ammonium nitrate and left it to drain overnight until next session. We continued to wash supernatant until little or no Cl- is detected in filtered supernatant. Detect the Cl- by acidifying a few milliliters of filtrate with 1 mL of dilute HNO3 and adding a few drops of 0. 1 M AgNO3. If precipitate is observed, Cl- is present. After identifying that there was not any Cl- present we allowed the filter to drain overnight covered with ventilation.Carefully, the paper was lifted out of the funnel, folded (fig. 2), and transferred all dried substance to crucible and any substance that is not completely dry place into beaker and into the heater for half an hour. Those placed in beaker was then placed into the crucibles that were brought to constant mass. With the paper and substance in the crucible it was placed over a small flame with the lid off to start to char the filter paper. The flame temperature was then increased keeping the lid handy to smother the crucible of the paper flames.After the paper seems visibly charred ignite the product for full 15 minutes with full heat of the burner directed at the base of the crucible where oxidized iron is located. When the crucibles have briefly cooled in the air, we then placed them in the desiccator for 30 minutes. After the 30 minutes of cooling in the desiccator weigh the crucible and the lid, reignite, and bring to constant mass with the repeated heating within a mass of 0. 3 mg. We are now complete with the experiment. Calculate the weight percent of iron in each sample, the average, the standard deviation, and the relative standard deviation for your data.Results: Crucible 1: 0. 231 g Fe2O3 ? 1 mol Fe2O3159. 487g ? 2 mol FeOOH1 mol Fe2O3? 55. 845 g1 mol = 0. 162g Fe0. 162 g1. 505 g? 100=10. 764% Crucible 2: 0. 252 g Fe2O3 ? 1 mol Fe2O3159. 487g ? 2 mol FeOOH1 mol Fe2O3? 55. 845 g1 m ol = 0. 176g Fe0. 176 g1. 501 g? 100=11. 725% Crucible 3: 0. 268 g Fe2O3 ? 1 mol Fe2O3159. 487g ? 2 mol FeOOH1 mol Fe2O3? 55. 845 g1 mol = 0. 183g Fe0. 183 g1. 502 g? 100=12. 216% *Refer to appendix for sample mass table and calculation equations | Crucible 1| Crucible 2| Crucible 3| Weight percent| 10. 764 %| 11. 725 %| 12. 216%|Average| 0. 250 g| Standard Deviation| 0. 019| Relative Deviation| 0. 015| Discussion: Since the obtained and expected results are not 100 percent match we can conclude that during the experiment we encountered a loss of product, with an average percent of 11. 57 and an obtained of 12. 90 percent. In the experiment the precipitate was washed repeatedly with given solution to filter out any Cl- at this time we notice that some of the precipitate had gone through the filter through the sides from solution being held to high causing an overflow on the sides of the filter.This was notice by the orange tint in the beaker of the filtered solution. In the experime nt scales were also changed due to overuse. That could cause some flux in the measurement changes by small degree. Another error or issue during the experiment a lids on our crucible broke having to replace it caused a changed in our final weigh being that in the beginning we weighed our crucibles with the lid. Remaining constant in the lab is a must this does cut back on experimental error such as using the same analytical balances and labeling all equipment and crucibles.In the Gravimetric determination is the measurement of mass in two different forms precipitation and volatilization. Some of the underlying principles and theories of gravimetric analysis are law of mass action, reversible reactions, and principle of solubility product and common ion effect. Conclusion: The gravimetric determination procedure determined that we had an average of 11. 568% of Fe in our unknown solution, given the amount of 12. 90% of Fe. We experienced a loss of approximately 1. 332 %. This loss cou ld be included in instrumental and human errors.References: Lewis, D. 2013. Quantitative Analysis Lab Journal. Gravimetric Determination of Iron as Fe2O3. Vol. 1: Pages 4 – 5. Franklin, J. 2013. Quantitative Analysis Lab Journal. Gravimetric Determination of Iron as Fe2O3. Vol. 1: Pages 7 – 11. Bb Learn. 2013. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. Gravimetric Determination of Iron Lab Handout. Harris, Daniel C. 8th edition. Quantitative Chemical Analysis Textbook. Appendix: Calculation equations: Mean : Mean = Sum of X values / N(Number of values) Standard Deviation: Relative Deviation: 100 ? sxCrucibles| Mass of the Beaker (empty) (g)| Mass of the Beaker & Unknown (g)| Mass of the Unknown Sample (g)| 1| 144. 181 g| 146. 686 g| 1. 505 g| 2| 159. 328 g| 160. 829 g| 1. 501 g| 3| 167. 480 g| 168. 982 g| 1. 502 g| * Above are the measurements of the unknown samples obtained Crucibles| Mass of Crucible (g)| Mass Crucible & final product (g)| Mass of final product (g)| 1| 31. 752 g| 31. 982 g| 0. 231 g| 2| 33. 820 g| 34. 072 g| 0. 252 g| 3| 40. 802 g| 40534 g| 0. 268 g| * Above are the measurements of Iron found in unknown sample