Previous and present literature regarding the mind is vast and Searle acknowledges this, so the task of effectively bringing every theory, which he regards as being based on “false assumptions”, into disrepute, makes this particular book stand out. Searle is no stranger to this having previously published works on the philosophy of mind, of which he cites throughout the book. He begins his argument focusing on Descartes’ theory of dualism (that the mind and body are separate entities but cannot function without one another) titled as a “disaster” by Searle. His views on the matter are already well known after publishing “Why I am not a Property Dualist” (2002) but here he furthers his intent. It is in the opening exchanges here that one begins to grasp Searle’s prose like writing technique which, as a first year psychology student, I found light and fairly enjoyable to read.
He also believed that different interviews are used for different purposes. Research through interview attains information and understanding of issues which are relevant to specific questions of a research project. Arkskey 1999 et al.... believed that one of the great strengths of using interviews for research is that it takes many different approaches. Structured interviews are when a researcher asks questions which are set in advance. A disadvantage to this will be that the researchers may be biased as they will already have a set of questions therefore likely to gain expected answers.
Every clinician must decide which theory best aligns with his or her own views and apply as necessary. In many cases, a combination of several theories offers the best explanation. Whether one believes that nature has more influence on personality and behavior or believes nurture offers the best explanation, the debate will continue. Dave Pelzer offers one example of an individual who possessed the inner strength to overcome his early, horrific, and violent exposure to life. By studying experiences such as his, and applying theory, clinicians answer many questions, yet in doing so raises more.
Moore and Parker (2007, pps. 456-457) presents the reader with the article Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11 which is an excellent of use of rhetoric in hiding premises and conclusions. The authors of the article provide a lot of arguments that use fallacies based on outrage and innuendo, which do not support many of the arguments that they make throughout. However, the authors do want to “influence our attitudes or beliefs,” (Moore and Parker, 2007, p. 117) which provides the basis for some argument exploration. Two primary arguments that are seen within the article are; 1) strategies currently used to fight terrorism are ineffective and; 2) the U.S. has over-reacted to terrorist attacks.
For example, a person fixated on the anal stage is usually described as being very obsessive and particulate. An advantage of the psychodynamic approach is that it shows how abnormal behaviour can be a result of unconscious conflict, which is why a person may not understand why they’re behaving a certain way or why different therapies aren’t working for them. A criticism of the approach is that it isn’t scientific or researched. Most of Freud’s findings are based on case studies which can’t be replicated or generalised to a wider population. There is also evidence that Freud exaggerated some of his findings to suit his theory.
Each author’s method in integrating the oral history may be different and, to some degree, inadequate, but the presence of oral accounts in their essays give voice to different perspectives of that time. It is evident, then, that altogether the oral history in each essay holds value and plays a significant role in the integrity of each argument. We must be careful, however, to fully accept the perspectives and arguments the author presents to us as definitively as any individual identity in any historical account, including the author, has the power to misinterpret and miscommunicate historical accounts accidently or
Though the validity of this study cannot be refuted, it still possesses some limitations. A major limitation of the first study was that it was based on a survey done using questionnaires and does not assess in real time, the degree of violence exhibited. It would have also been better if the study was by direct observation or by confirmation of the violent tendencies through more objective means which would have further consolidated the
It may seem that these two have only subtle semantic distinctions; but in fact they are quite at odds. Perfection is excellence’s somewhat pernicious cousin. It is pedantic, binary, unforgiving and inflexible. Certainly there are times when “perfection” is necessary to establish standards, like in performance athletics such as diving and gymnastics. But in general, perfection is someone else’s perception of an ideal, and pursuing it is like chasing a hallucination.
For a more explicit understanding, doubt by definition is the uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making. Knowledge by definition is the acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report. The correlation between the two is that the more you doubt, the more knowledge you gain because instead of being focused on one certain conclusion, you start thinking about other possible outcomes. This is due to the fact that we use doubt, as well as being open-minded. Being open-minded means to be receptive to arguments or ideas.
One of the novel intensive approaches for treating aphasia is CIAT. The goal of this study was to confirm the impact of intense therapy using the CI paradigm in patients with chronic Aphasia. Materials and Methods: A single-subject A-B design was used. Two chronic aphasia participants with a single left hemisphere cerebrovascular lesion were recruited