Monday, May 13, 2013

Comprehensive Works Cited List



1.) Barbara, Latten. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2013.

2.) Bechtold, Brigitte. "Understanding Virginia Woolfes Social Thought." More Than A Room and Three Guineas . Bridgewater University, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/may00/bechtold.htm>.

3.) Cohen, Jay S. "Respected physicians call for end of conflicts of interest with the drug industry." The Medical Professions Culture of Corruption. Medicationsense.com, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. <http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/jan_apr_06/conflict_of_interest_020306.html>.

4.) Gruber, Howard E. "Nature Vs. Nurture: A Natural Experiment." The New York Times (1981): 1. Print.

5.) Kreuder, Kent. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2013.

6.) Kronenberger, Louis. Virginia Woolfe Discusses Women and Fiction. New York Times, Nov. Web. 10 Mar. 1929. <http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/woolf-room.html>.
7.) Mcleod, Saul. Nature Nurture in Psychology . Simply Psychology , 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html>.


8.) Mercola, Dr. Joseph. The FDA exposed. Mercola.com, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. http://www.mercola.com/Downloads/bonus/the-FDA-exposed/default.aspx

9.) Moran, Mickey. "Feminist Void." 1930s America. Department of History, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1988-9/moran.htm>.

10.) Nordqvist, Christian. What are the branches of psychology . Medical News Today, 22 June 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154874.php>.

11.) Ramshaw, Emily. "Payments to Doctors by Pharmaceutical Companies Raise Issues of Conflicts." Texas Tribune 9 June 2012: 1. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/payments-to-doctors-by-pharmaceutical-companies-raise-issues-of-conflicts.html?_r=0>.

12.) Richman, Joe. Identical Strangers. NPR books, 25 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/2007/10/25/15629096/identical-strangers-explore-nature-vs-nurture>.

13.) Thomas, Joe. Women Writers Such as Virginia Wolfe Silenced in the 1930's. Yahoo, 27 Oct. 2006. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/women-writers-such-as-virigina-woolf-silenced-the-100324.html?cat=38>.

14.) "Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy and health." Pharmaceutical Industry . World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. <http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/index.html>.
"The Pharmaceutical Industry." Boldrine & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly. UCLA, n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf>.

15.) Woolfe, Virginia. A Room of Ones Own. A Project Gutenberg, Oct. 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200791.txt>.

English 201 Experience

This course has definitely taught me a lot of things about writing that I did not know about. I feel like I progressively got more concrete in my writing abilities. The reading assignments were very fun to read, and the writing assignments were relevant to what was being learned. I thought some things were challenging about the course. Probably the most challenging assignment was the first paper. I wrote about the pharmaceutical Industry, and it was actually difficult to find relevant and scholarly sources pertaining to what I wanted to right about regarding the drug industry. I really enjoyed the discussion boards and participating with my fellow classmates. The responses I did receive challenged me to think in a new way about the topic I was writing about. It also provided a way to humanize the online classroom experience. For me, the discussion boards were a place where i could voice my opinion about a topic, and have classmates further structure the topic at hand. The Feynman reading was stretched out throughout the entire semester, which was awesome. I think if I would have read that entire story in a short amount of time it would have not been as good. I tend to miss things when I read quickly. Overall, this class was fun, challenging, intriguing, and it really made my writing abilities more strong.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

350 Word Short Story: "Throughly at Home"


Dylan T. Gough
dylangough@mycwi.cc
English 201 002W
Professor Leslie Jewkes
February 21, 2013
Thoroughly at Home
Living downtown was easy, and it was fun. A single bachelor with a perfect pad, he never made the most of it though. John stayed inside and never ventured into the world, never took a trip to the foothills to be alone, never left to camp alone. The introverted hermit crab needed an escape. John was happy, but not enthused. Life was plain, and he needed some change. He was not used to leaving his comfort zone.
John had a day off from work, which was two minutes away from where he lived. Everything was so close, which made it easy for him to do something, but he never did. Today was sunny and it was mid June, John had a subtle smile on his face and all he wanted to do was go home and listen to music. His “venturing” out meant opening the blinds a little more so the world could see inside his home. He walked inside his house, shoes clanking to the well-kept hard wood floor. Standing there torn about what to do he takes a deep breathe and says, “Now or never, what should I do today?”
A feeling of exploration takes over his body, he takes the step and grabs some things from the apartment, and starts his car. Such a calm day, but he had a feeling of passion inside his heart. Something wild and full of joy, this wasn’t usual for John. He needed to stop at the gas station to get some gas, and drinks. With a smile on his face he walks in and greets the associate “Hey how are you doing today!?”. The associate looked at him confused like he hadn’t been greeted like that all day, “Oh, umm I am good actually thanks for asking”. This day changed John’s life, he started pumping his gas. He was looking around and felt pure bliss, sun beaming down on his face and people were glancing at him from the sidewalks. Now, John was a handsome fellow. Cut cheekbones, great physique, brown eyes, and hair that was naturally pushed back. Today though he actually smiled, and noticed a different response to people, and they way he felt.
He proceeded to drive to the mountains, he listened to music and wondered why he felt they way he did today and what he did differently. Turning into different campsites and unmarked roads he finally found an open meadow with nobody around it. There was yellow everywhere, and green filled the area. Everything was active and he felt even more alive. John said, “How can I feel like this everyday?”. He closed his eyes and just walked wherever his feet led him. He opened his eyes and saw a campsite by the river smoldering with coals, like someone just left the area. He sat down on a stump right by the river and bowed his head, feeling extremely peaceful. He looked up and saw a flat rock standing up by a tree. John picked it up and it had black writing on it from the coals and a stick and it read, “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail”.

Paper One: The Pharmaceutical Industry


Dylan T. Gough
dylangough@mycwi.cc
English 201 002W
Professor Leslie Jewkes
February 15, 2013
The Pharmaceutical Industry: The Seduction
            The pharmaceutical industry is powerful in sales and influence, it influences the way care providers treat patients. A conflict of interest exists between physicians and the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry is more than the development and manufacturing of drugs, it is a system driven by sales. The only way to sell these drugs is to prescribe them, and doctors have the resources to do so.
            Looking at the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and doctors is important because they work together like a car. Think of it like the motor being the drug industry and the wheels being the doctors. Without the doctors these pharmaceutical companies would not be able to make sells, this is true because doctors prescribe the medicines. Just like any product being sold there exists incentives to how many you can sell. This is similar to the drug industry and doctors with the pharmaceutical industry rewarding the doctors to how much they can prescribe and sell.
The drug industry has been roundly criticized for its intense, diverse, and unrelenting efforts to influence doctors and sell more drugs.  The criticism has accomplished little, and drug sales have soared.  The analysis by Brennen et al. focused on the medical profession, acknowledging that "physicians' behavior is a large part of the problem," and that the stature of the medical profession and the trust of patients have been jeopardized by medicine's many conflicts of interest with the drug industry (Cohen 1).
The global pharmaceutical market is worth $300 billion a year. About $19 billion of that goes to marketing to doctors to sell their drug. Sales representatives parade in doctor’s offices daily all over the country, to market drugs. Physicians claim that there are no incentives associated with selling the drugs. However, “Decades of research have allowed marketers to learn how to influence anyone without his/her knowing it.  Doctors are not immune.  Moreover, drug companies are subtle.  They not only provide gifts and dinners and seminars, but also leave behind carefully select studies that support the use of their drugs.  The overarching goal is to control the information that doctors receive about medications” (Cohen 1).
            Doctors supplement their salaries with income from the pharmaceutical companies. This is a very powerful statement, and when we look more in depth at the drug industry it becomes apparent that this statement is very true. Emily Ramshaw from The New York Times states, “Drug companies pay medical professionals for a wide range of activities, from speaking engagements to consulting. While legal, the practice raises questions about potential conflicts, and whether the interests of patients may be compromised” (Ramshaw 1). Doctors scratch the drug industries back by prescribing a new product, and drug industries scratch doctors backs by giving them free meals, cash payments, free travel, and other perks.
            The marketing scheme that the drug industry implements is very misleading. To name one that the majority of Americans have all seen is for Claritin, the allergy medicine. Most of these commercials or advertisements take place in the wilderness, or the outdoors. Usually given the message that you will be able to increase your life expectancy, live better, and make the quality of life much more enjoyable. Then all of the sudden “Side effects may include, wheezing, sudden loss of vision, high blood pressure, and on some rare occasions it can be fatal”. Thank the FDA for that one, It is good to know that you may die by taking something. Because most of the time doctors won’t even tell you unless you really pry it out of them. Or they will say that the pharmacist will answer those questions.
            The FDA exists to supposedly make our food better in terms of health, and as well as our drugs. However, that doesn’t seem like the case because we are seeing more processed and preservative foods come out. The only thing that is really good for us is organic and natural foods, which are very expensive. Dr. Mercola states, “With the FDA and Big Pharma seemingly in cahoots, unsafe drugs are getting approved and natural medicine is being persecuted because it poses a threat to big drug companies” (Mercola 1). Therefore, safer alternatives are not being pursued in the medical industry. If you want to pursue that safer alternative than you would need to find a specialist for that. We should be able to trust a doctor for trying to prescribe something that is healthy in the first place.
            It all comes back to money, doctors wanting that extra pocket change and the free trips and perks. The drug industry benefits off of the doctors ability to prescribe, which is simple because as patients we trust their judgment. Often times the problem gets worse by taking these drugs. Numerous patients report that taking anti-depressants just make them numb to the hurt and pain they are experiencing. It goes to show that we live in a microwave society, and people want to take the shortcut to feel better in less time than it would to take the long route and feel better for a much longer period of time. The relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and our doctors is a relationship fueled by money.
           
Works Cited
Cohen, Jay S. "Respected physicians call for end of conflicts of interest with the drug industry." The Medical Professions Culture of Corruption. Medicationsense.com, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. <http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/jan_apr_06/conflict_of_interest_020306.html>.
Mercola, Dr. Joseph. The FDA exposed. Mercola.com, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. http://www.mercola.com/Downloads/bonus/the-FDA-exposed/default.aspx
Ramshaw, Emily. "Payments to Doctors by Pharmaceutical Companies Raise Issues of Conflicts." Texas Tribune 9 June 2012: 1. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/payments-to-doctors-by-pharmaceutical-companies-raise-issues-of-conflicts.html?_r=0>.
"Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy and health." Pharmaceutical Industry . World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. <http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/index.html>.
"The Pharmaceutical Industry." Boldrine & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly. UCLA, n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf>.

Paper One: Annotated Bibliography


Dylan T. Gough
dylangough@mycwi.cc
English 201 002W
Professor Leslie Jewkes
February 12, 2013
Annotated Bibliography
Cohen, Jay S. "Respected physicians call for end of conflicts of interest with the drug industry." The Medical Professions Culture of Corruption. Medicationsense.com, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. <http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/jan_apr_06/conflict_of_interest_020306.html>.  Dr. Jay S. Cohen examines the conflict of interest present with the pharmaceutical companies and physicians. This source states that there has been an intense effort to influence doctors and sell more drugs. Dr. Cohen realizes and states that the large part of the problem with the drug industry is the physicians who support it and their behaviors regarding patient treatment and prescription. Drug companies to market to doctors spend $19 billion annually. This source deals with the relationship between the drug industry and doctors. This source is important to my research because it shows that the pharmaceutical industry and doctors have a conflict of interest. This is important in my research because the pharmaceutical industry is trying to sell more drugs for a bigger profit. Also, doctors are rewarded by the pharmaceutical industry by how much they can promote these drugs.
Mercola, Dr. Joseph. The FDA exposed. Mercola.com, n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. http://www.mercola.com/Downloads/bonus/the-FDA-exposed/default.aspx
            I thought this source written by Dr. Joseph Mercola was important because it talks about the FDA. This is relative to the pharmaceutical industry because the FDA must approve a drug before it is distributed to the market. It states that is more beneficial for the pharmaceutical companies to have more unhealthy people because that means more sales. This source states that even some of the FDA’s own scientists have doubts about the agency’s credibility. This source deals with the relationship between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. This source is very important because it takes about the FDA, something worth mentioning in my research paper because every drug on the market must be approved by the FDA. This will help me in my research because the FDA controls what goes on to the market and what does not.
Ramshaw, Emily. "Payments to Doctors by Pharmaceutical Companies Raise Issues of Conflicts." Texas Tribune 9 June 2012: 1. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/payments-to-doctors-by-pharmaceutical-companies-raise-issues-of-conflicts.html?_r=0>.
            This source written by the Ney York Times goes a little bit more in depth with the conflict of interest between pharmaceutical companies and doctors. It states that many doctors supplement their income from the pharmaceutical companies. It states that drug companies pay medical professionals from speaking engagements, and consulting. It states that the interests of patients may be compromised due to that conflict of interest between the drug companies and physicians. From 2009 to early 2011, at least 25,000 Texas physicians and researchers received a combined $57 million — and probably far more — in cash payments, research money, free meals, travel and other perks, according to data culled from 12 drug companies. Payments also were not being disclosed. Therefore, a federal law has been set in place to discourage and require disclosure of payments. This source will aid me in my research because it goes in a lot of depth about the relationship between the drug industry and doctors. Also, how doctors translate to patients.
"Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy and health." Pharmaceutical Industry . World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. <http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/index.html>.
            This source examines the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.  It deals with the pharmaceutical industry and how they struggle to maintain sales. It states that expenditure on medicines accounts for a major proportion of health costs in developing countries. Therefore, access to treatment is dependent upon the affordability of medicines. It also looks at generic drugs, which is a pharmaceutical product usually intended to be interchangeable with an innovator product that is manufactured without a license from the innovator company and marketed after the expiry date of the patent or other exclusive rights. Generic drugs tend to be cheaper than brand name drugs. The are as effective as brand name drugs as well. I found this post to be good to use in my research because it really focuses in on generic drugs, which are important in the pharmaceutical industry and something important to write about.
"The Pharmaceutical Industry." Boldrine & Levine: Against Intellectual Monopoly. UCLA, n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf>.
            This source is very lengthy, and it was published by UCLA. This source is one of the major ones I will use in my research because it talks about everything that deals with the pharmaceutical industry. I believe his source will help me more then all the other ones because it scope is broad, and the information within is accurate. It talks about the patents that the pharmaceutical industry has. It takes about the various companies within the drug industry. It talks about the history of pharmaceutical patents. This post mostly deals with the patent process of a drug. I found this source to be a good one because it is written by professors at UCLA, and the information in it is very analytical and appropriate to the topic I am researching.
            

Paper two: "A Room of Ones Own"


Dylan T. Gough
gough_dylan@yahoo.com
English 201 002W
Professor Leslie Jewkes
April 6, 2013
A Room of Ones Own
Women have not always had a say in what goes on in this world. Men dominated politics, literature, art, and had most of the wealth. “A Room of Ones Own” first published by Virginia Woolfe as a series of lectures at women’s colleges in 1929, seeks to identify why men have dominated the literature field in and around that time period. In this short story, Virginia Woolfe uses a fictional character to identify three important factors as to why women did not write fiction during the 1930’s.  She states that women needed a room of their own, money, and confidence.
 In “A Room of Ones Own” Woolfe says that, “A women must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction”.  This is one of the most important quotes in this story. Taking an in depth look at the story and the time frame when this was written clearly gives an answer as to what Woolfe was talking about. Louis Kronenberger from The New York Times states,
Having so clearly indicated her argument, Mrs. Woolf even more clearly proceeds to maintain and illuminate it. And in the course of doing so she manages, however much she may pretend to limit her theme, to say a good deal about the true nature of women and of fiction. She says little that has not been said before; indeed, she sets out to prove a point that most intelligent people accept as truistic; but seldom has the point been driven home more cogently or embellished with wittier comment”.
There is no doubt that Woolfe almost jokingly writes this story. When she went into the library to try and find any information on women and fiction she finds books that are only written by “angry men” (Woolfe 1).
            In this short story Woolfe writes, “Call me Mary Beton, Mary Seton, Mary Carmichael or by any name you please - it is not a matter of any importance” (Woolfe 1). Why would Woolfe not want to apply this story directly to herself? She knew that she just wanted to pose a question to women, to raise “prejudices and passions” (Woolfe 1). Distancing herself from the story, to get the real point out without promoting for her own interests was her intent. She writes a personal criticism that doesn’t sacrifice her privacy; it ties the reader into a first person narrator and creates the feeling of having a personal conversation with her.
Women really didn’t have a name in the sense of society during the 1930’s. They were expected to clean house and be good wives. If women got married they usually had to quit their jobs and become enslaved to a house to take care of children, clean, cook, and just about everything else that needed to be done inside the home. When our “fictional” character Mary Beton walks across the grass at her college a man stops her and tells her she needs to walk on the path, basically saying only men can walk on the grass. “His face expressed horror and indignation. Instinct rather than reason came to my help, he was a Beadle; I was a woman. This was the turf; there was the path. Only the Fellows and Scholars are allowed here; the gravel is the place for me” (Woolfe 1). She questions this at the beginning of the story when she is looking at people through a restaurant window. She notices people shuffling past each other with some kind of superiority by means of wealth and rank. She goes on to say that the “human imagination can create a sense of superiority over others” (Woolfe 1).
Women were fearful of men during this time. Men were taking away women’s freedom of expression. That is why Woolfe states that a woman must have a room of her own if she is to write fiction. A woman must have her own room so she can write in peace, and be able to express in a “free” environment. She can walk anywhere she would like inside this room. She can think, meditate, ponder, wander, laugh, cry, and no man can tell her she can’t. Woolfe believes that if a woman has her own room she will write well, and produce literary works that make changes. Woolfe wrote standing up, so did many other create novelists. They all had a room of their own, or a room outside of their own, for Mary Beton it was at the riverbank.
Men wrote most of the literature during the 1930’s, and it was difficult for any woman to publish literature. This is why Woolfe states that a woman must have money to be able to write fiction. Many women did not have property rights, and were in a sense considered property themselves if they were married. If women did publish literature it was considered inferior to the works written by men, and men would consider it as just an opinion. During this time women needed more money to publish than men did. Woolfe is historically and culturally valid in regards to women needing to have money to be able to publish literature. In the Journal of International Women’s studies, Brigitte Bechtold says,
“The diaries are helpful in developing our understanding that Woolf's socioeconomic thought does not merely attack male patriarchy in favor of gender equality. They contain important examples showing that Woolf despised social elitism among women as among men, and that some of the role models for women in her essays and novels were actually played by men in her life, notably young men who became emotionally and physically damaged in war”.
This simple fact that Woolfe was not just attacking men gives absolute credibility to the reason she wrote the story, which was to encourage women to actually write, and step out of status quo. Woolfe knew that women were not very confident and independent, therefore she stressed that women needed to step out of their comfort zone.
            It is true that during this time a lot of women did not have the confidence to create meaningful literary works. Life for both sexes—and I look at them, shouldering their way along the pavement—is arduous, difficult, a perpetual struggle. It calls for gigantic courage and strength. More than anything, perhaps, creatures of illusion that we are, it calls for confidence in oneself” (Woolfe 1).  This quote states that men make women out to be inferior and incapable to make themselves feel more confident. Courage is needed in order to step out of comfort zones, and challenge society. She mentions that material things will never be able to bring confidence to someone. That one needs confidence and has to believe in themselves.
            If women did not posses money or a room of there own, Woolfe believes that a woman cannot write fiction. Also, if a woman does not possess confidence, the literary work will lack meaning and power. The fact that men made women out to be inferior and incapable of producing, forced women to be closed minded and fearful. Woolfe was direct and blunt, not just attacking men, but exposing women for what they can be. She points out the value of human expression, and the importance of confidence in ones ability even during extreme obstacles. Woolfe knew her work was up for interpretation, but she was clear that for a woman to be able to write fiction, she needs money and a room of her own.




















Works Cited
Bechtold, Brigitte. "Understanding Virginia Woolfes Social Thought." More Than A Room and Three Guineas . Bridgewater University, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/may00/bechtold.htm>.

Kronenberger, Louis. Virginia Woolfe Discusses Women and Fiction. New York Times, Nov. Web. 10 Mar. 1929. <http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/specials/woolf-room.html>.

Moran, Mickey. "Feminist Void." 1930s America. Department of History, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1988-9/moran.htm>.

Thomas, Joe. Women Writers Such as Virginia Wolfe Silenced in the 1930's. Yahoo, 27 Oct. 2006. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/women-writers-such-as-virigina-woolf-silenced-the-100324.html?cat=38>.

Woolfe, Virginia. A Room of Ones Own. A Project Gutenberg, Oct. 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200791.txt>.




A Room of Ones Own Outline
Feminist Criticism “A Room of Ones Own”

Introduction:
Thesis: Women have not always had a say in what goes on in this world. Men dominated politics, literature, art, and had most of the wealth. “A Room of Ones Own” written by Virginia Woolfe, seeks to identify why men have dominance over the literature in and around the 1930s.

Body Paragraphs:
I. In “A Room of Ones Own” Woolfe says that “A women must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction”. She describes that “Angry men” write all the books she finds in the library.
            A. “It was thus that I found myself walking with extreme rapidity across a grass plot. Instantly a man's figure rose to intercept me. Nor did I at first understand that the gesticulations of a curious-looking object, in a cut-away coat and evening shirt, were aimed at me. His face expressed horror and indignation. Instinct rather than reason came to my help, he was a Beadle; I was a woman. This was the turf; there was the path. Only the Fellows and Scholars are allowed here; the gravel is the place for me” (Woolfe 1).
                        1. Women in the 1930’s were expected to clean house and be good wifes. The fact that the character in “A Room of Ones Own” is at college is pretty rare for women in those days.
                        2. If women got married she was expected to leave her job. Wages were low and there were not as many colleges as there are today.

II. Men wrote most of the literature, and it was difficult for women to publish any piece of literature. This is why Virginia Woolfe states that a women must have money if she is to write fiction.
            A. During the 1930’s many women did not have property rights, and were in a sense considered property themselves if they were married.
                        1. If women did publish literature it was considered inferior to the works written by men.
                        2. Woolfe believes that if women did publish something to be true men would consider it an opinion.

III. Women were fearful of men during this time. Men were taking away women’s freedom of expression. That is why Woolfe states that a woman must have a room of her own if she is to write fiction.
            A. “Life for both sexes—and I look at them, shouldering their way along the pavement—is arduous, difficult, a perpetual struggle. It calls for gigantic courage and strength. More than anything, perhaps, creatures of illusion that we are, it calls for confidence in oneself” (Woolfe 1).
            1. Woolfe is stating that there is an unequal treatment of women by men. This quote states that men make women out to be inferior and incapable to make themselves feel more confident.
            2. During this time women were not confident enough to create meaningful literary works

Conclusion: During this time if women did not posses money or a room of there own, Woolfe believes that a women cannot write fiction. Also, if a women does not posses confidence the literary work will lack in meaning and power. The fact that men during this time made women out to be inferior and incapable of producing, forced women to be closed minded and fearful.

Works Cited

Woolfe, Virginia. A Room of Ones Own. A Project Gutenberg, Oct. 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200791.txt>.

Thomas, Joe. Women Writers Such as Virginia Wolfe Silenced in the 1930's. Yahoo, 27 Oct. 2006. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/women-writers-such-as-virigina-woolf-silenced-the-100324.html?cat=38>.

Moran, Mickey. "Feminist Void." 1930s America. Department of History, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. <http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1988-9/moran.htm>.

Final Paper: Nature vs. nurture


College of Western Idaho




Nature Vs. Nurture




Dylan Thomas Gough
gough_dylan@yahoo.com
English 201 002W
Professor Leslie Jewkes
April 21, 2013






Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to expose the differences and similarities between nature vs. nurture. How they correlate to each other, and shape human development. That without both we would all be the same and have the same experiences. This controversial topic is one of the oldest arguments in psychology. Nature vs. nurture states that feelings, ideas, and human behavior are innate or learned. I will be writing about when this debate first rooted, and why. Also, I will be arguing that we are born with certain characteristics in are thinking, that are then shaped by our experiences. I will be writing about how genes do affect our behavior, and how the environment shapes behavior.




Nature vs. Nurture
            Human development has been regarded as one of the most highly controversial topics in the world of psychology. This debate is labeled nature vs. nurture. The controversy centers on the premise that our personality, behavior, intelligence, and feelings are either genetically inherited, or environmentally earned; that we are innate creatures born with our personalities, or that they are learned by experience and time. We are born with our personalities, but our behaviors are learned through experience and shaped thru time.
            The study of human thought has been around for thousands of years. In ancient Greece, China, India, and Egypt they had a more scientific way of approaching psychology. They were among the first to have psychiatric hospitals. However, the origin and the beginning of a more advanced and well-rounded approach came from Wilhelm Wundt, the “father of psychology”. He set up the first laboratory at Leipzig University in 1879. The studies he conducted were centered on both the behavioral and genetic aspect of individuals. The entire study of psychology is based off of nature vs. nurture. Which debates that human experience can be defined as genetic inheritance and environmental upbringing. 
Psychology has five distinct branches that are based off of nature vs. nurture. The biological approach focuses on genetic inheritance for the explanation of behavior. Psychoanalysis is “innate drives of sex and aggression (nature), and social upbringing during childhood (Nurture)” (Mcleod 1).  Cognitive psychology focuses on mental processes, while humanism states that society influences the way people perceive themselves. Lastly, behaviorism focuses on the notion that human behavior is learned through conditioning that comes from the environment.
            The nature vs. nurture debate started in 1582 when the British educator Richard Mulcaster stated, “Nature makes the boy toward, and nurture sees him forward”. What he meant is that the nature vs. nurture debate explores the contributions of our genetic inheritance and environmental influences that shape our thoughts and behaviors. The nature vs. nurture debate didn’t take full stride until 1866 when Gregory Mendel introduced that genes have an impact on human development. Genes that are inherited include down syndrome, color blindness, sickle cell disease, and among many others. Every individual inherits specific traits unique to ones own genetic code including color of skin, hair, eyes, height, and even the shape of our face. These are things that we inherit genetically and not environmentally. If you take two of the exact same people with the exact same traits and place them in entirely different environments they will still possess those traits. In an interview with Barbara Latten, a board certified nurse she stated, “I think that inherently we are who we are. However, I do believe our environment whether it be our home, extended family, or neighborhood tends to shape how we think and our worldview, and how we respond. Some people can rise above environmental obstacles due to the strength of their genetic traits”  (Latten).
            There are two types of believers regarding human development: Nativists and empiricists. A nativist is someone who believes that certain skills or abilities are "native" or hard-wired into the brain in the womb or at birth. That each person has a unique genetic code that is specific to that individual as a whole. Some people are born with a more superior genetic make-up than others. I sat down with Kent Kreuder a surgeon F.A.C.S and Governor of the American College of Surgeons, and President of the Board of West Valley Medical Center regarding the genetic superiority that some are born with:
People who are born genetically superior. Meaning, with greater intelligence or greater physique, and those who somehow miss the genetic propensity to cancer are naturally going to be fitter than people who are stunted in their growth or have genetic disease’s or poorer mental capacity will have a clear disadvantage in the competition that society presents. Not everybody is the CEO of apple, or sitting on the sidewalk with a sign (Kreuder).
Being genetically superior has been around since the beginning of time. Survival of the fittest was not a test of how environmentally prepared one was, but how genetically structured and fit an individual was. It means how well one can perform under extreme stress, or life threatening situations. So for human development without nature human beings would not exist.
            Beyond the genetic make-up of individuals we have extremists who believe that our behavior, personalities, ideas, and characteristics are shaped by experience and environmental factors alone. These individuals are labeled as empiricists. Empiricists believe that knowledge comes only from experience and that any individual can obtain this knowledge if surrounded by the correct environment with the right resources.  Among the many people who used this approach the most famous were Aristotle, Plato, and Thomas Aquinas. These individuals used the scientific method due to experience and trial and error to formulate hypothesis and conclusions. The environment in which we grow up in shapes the way we perceive the world. If we are secluded to a certain environment for a long period of time, we think of the rest of the world in a similar fashion. Our thoughts, attitudes, and behavior are shaped in that environment due to survival. If you look at some of the most extreme places to live in the world, an individual living in that environment has to remain emotionally strong due to extreme environmental factors. Whether the reason being human created or environmentally made. The environment in which we are surrounded in shapes our character, we must adapt to our surroundings.
People who are born into families that isolate children and don’t stimulate them emotionally or educationally will grow up to a disadvantage to society. Society is by nature competitive and evolutionary. You can take a thousand children with the same genetic capacities and nurturing will stratify them. We are all born with one of nine general personality types and that the nurture aspect our parents seem to emphasize what they would like rather than what we were born with (Kreuder).
Our environment can change, but are genetic code is mostly constant and irreversible. Therefore, one can change their life and behavior by changing their environment. Our parent’s emphasize traits and values that society or our environment encourages. Our natural instincts are put on hold, and forced to change. When a parent tells a two-year-old boy not to be aggressive, in theory that parent is disregarding genetically inherited qualities that most boys possess due to hormonal imbalances and chemical compositions.
            A study done on identical twins is considered one of the biggest breakthroughs on the nature vs. nurture debate. What scientists found was incredible. When you take two individuals with the same genetic code and place them in two entirely different environments and analyze their differences and similarities 35 years later, the results are astounding. Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein were both born in New York, they were separated at birth and adopted by two loving families. Little did they know they were going to be apart of a secret scientific study conducted in the 1960’s and 1970’s to assess nature vs. nurture. The notion was that, “If they are reared apart, any differences between them must be attributed to differences in their environment, while similarities are mainly due to their identical heredity” (Gruber 1). Paula received a phone call from an adoption agency stating that she had a twin sister looking for her. When they reunited researchers gathered up all the information and concluded that despite the fact that these two twins grew up in completely different environments, they still possessed the same physical traits along with similar personalities and behaviors. Their experiences were different, but the way they responded to life was much of the same.  However, after the twins reunited researchers tested their IQ scores and they were significantly different. This valuable piece of information shows that experience and environment is directly linked to intelligence.
            Like Richard Mulcaster stated, “Nature makes the boy toward, and nurture sees him forward”. I believe that our genetic make-up largely shapes who we are and how we will respond to stress and environmental factors. While those environmental influences shape who we are in the sense of how we view the world. Our behavior, traits, personality are both shaped by nature and nurture.

Works Cited
Barbara, Latten. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2013.

Gruber, Howard E. "Nature Vs. Nurture: A Natural Experiment." The New York Times (1981): 1. Print.

Kreuder, Kent. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2013.

Mcleod, Saul. Nature Nurture in Psychology . Simply Psychology , 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html>.

Nordqvist, Christian. What are the branches of psychology . Medical News Today, 22 June 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154874.php>.

Richman, Joe. Identical Strangers. NPR books, 25 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/2007/10/25/15629096/identical-strangers-explore-nature-vs-nurture>.


Outline of Nature Vs. Nurture
                 Thesis: Human development has been regarded as one of the most highly controversial topics in the world of psychology. This debate is labeled nature vs. nurture. The controversy centers on the premise that our personality, behavior, intelligence, and feelings are either genetically inherited, or environmentally earned; that we are innate creatures born with our personalities, or that they are learned by experience and time. We are born with our personalities, but our behaviors are learned through experience and shaped thru time.

                 Citation Surgeon Kent: “People who are born genetically superior. Meaning, with greater intelligence or greater physique, and those who somehow miss the genetic propensity to cancer are naturally going to be fitter than people who are stunted in their growth or have genetic disease’s or poorer mental capacity will have a clear disadvantage in the competition that society presents. Not everybody is the CEO of apple, or sitting on the sidewalk with a sign”.

“T           The other side of the coin is that people who are born into families that isolate children and don’t stimulate them emotionally or educationally will grow up to a disadvantage to society. Society is by nature competitive and evolutionary. You can take a thousand children with the same genetic capacities and nurturing will stratify them. We are all born with one of nine general personality types and that the nurture aspect our parents seem to emphasis what they would like rather than what we were born with.”

Kent Kreuder M.D. F.A.C.S and Governor of the American College of Surgeons, and President of the Board of West Valley Medical Center.

Barbara Latten: “I think that inherently we are who we are. However, I do believe our environment whether it be our home, extended family, or neighboorhood tends to shape how we think and our world view, and how we respond. Some people can rise above environmental obstacles due to the strength of their genetic traits.”

Outline
Thesis: Human development has been regarded as one of the most highly controversial topics in the world of psychology. This debate is labeled nature vs. nurture. The controversy centers on the premise that our personality, behavior, intelligence, and feelings are either genetically inherited, or environmentally earned; that we are innate creatures born with our personalities, or that they are learned by experience and time. We are born with our personalities, but our behaviors are learned through experience and shaped thru time.

I.) Introduce psychology.
 II. Psychology definition:  Psychology is the science of the mind and behavior. (Nordqvist, 1)

III. Origin and beginning of psychology.
            a.) Wilhelm Wundt
            b.) 1879
            c.) Set up first laboratory that conducted studies regarding behavior and genetics at Leipzig University
            d.) known as the father of psychology.

III. In a philosophical context psychology was around thousands of years ago in ancient Greece, Egypt, India, Persia and China. Medieval Muslim psychologists and doctors had a more clinical and experimental approach to psychology - they were the first to have psychiatric hospitals.  (Nordqvist 1).


            IIII. The entire study of psychology is based off of nature vs. nurture. The human experience can be defined as genetic inheritance and environmental upbringing.  Psychology has five distinct branches that are based on nature vs nurture. A:
            1.) Approaches to psychology:  
                        a.) Biological approach- Focuses on genetic inheritance for the explanation of behavior.
                        b.) Psychoanalysis- Innate drives of sex and aggression (Nature). Social upbringing during childhood (Nurture). (Mcleod 1).
                        c.) Cognitive Psychology- Focuses on mental processes.
                        d.) Humanism- States that society influences how people perceive, themselves.
                        e.) Behaviorism- Focuses on the notion that human behavior is learned through conditioning that comes from the environment.

_____________________________________________________________________

II.) Introduction to nature vs. nurture debate
 III. Where it all started
            a.) British Educator Richard Mulcaster
            b.) Gregory Mendel introduced that genes have an impact on human development in 1866.
            b) “Nature makes the boy toward, nurture sees him forward”
IIII. The nature vs. nurture debate explores the contributions of our genetic inheritance and environmental influences that shape our thoughts and behaviors.

            1.) Give examples of specific genetic mutations.
                        a.) Down syndrome
                        b.) Skin pigmentation diseases
                        c.) etc
            2.) Give examples of specific traits.
                        a.) Color of skin
                        b.) Color of eyes
                        c.) Color of hair
                        d.) Shape of face
                        e.) etc
            ii. These are genes that we inherit naturally in the womb and are not environmentally obtained.

            IIII.) If we grow up in a well off suburb or a very low income neighborhood our experiences and the way an individual perceives things is going to be drastically different.
                        Source: “I think that inherently we are who we are. However, I do believe our environment whether it be our home, extended family, or neighboorhood tends to shape how we think and our world view, and how we respond. Some people can rise above environmental obstacles due to the strength of their genetic traits.”  (Latten).

_____________________________________________________________________

III.) Nature
            iii. Certain behavioral tendencies are wired in us before we are ever born. It has been scientifically proven that height, hair loss, and vulnerability to certain illness are apart of our genetic make-up. Therefore, how can behavioral tendencies not be apart of our genetic structure as well?
            1.) There are two types of believers regarding human development: Nativists and empiricists
                        a.) Definition- A nativist is someone who believes that certain skills or abilities are "native" or hard-wired into the brain in the womb or at birth. That each person has a unique genetic code that is specific to that individual as a whole. Some people are born with a more superior genetic make-up than others. I spoke with Kent Kreuder a surgeon at St. Lukes regarding the genetic superiority that some are born with:
                        Source: “People who are born genetically superior. Meaning, with greater intelligence or greater physique, and those who somehow miss the genetic propensity to cancer are naturally going to be fitter than people who are stunted in their growth or have genetic disease’s or poorer mental capacity will have a clear disadvantage in the competition that society presents. Not everybody is the CEO of apple, or sitting on the sidewalk with a sign”. (Kreuder 1).


________________________________________________________________________


IIII.) Nurture
            1.) Beyond the genetic make-up of individuals we have people who belive that our behavior, personalities, ideas, and characteristics are shaped by experience and environmental factors.
2.) On the other spectrum we have empiricists.
                                    a.) Empiricists believe that knowledge comes only from experience and that any individual can obtain this knowledge if surrounded by the correct environment with the right resources.  Among the many people who used this approach the most famous were Aristotle, Plato, and Thomas Aquinas. These individuals used the scientific method due to experience and trial and error to formulate hypothesis and conclusions.

                                    b.) The environment in which we grow up in shapes the way we perceive the world. If we are secluded to a certain environment for a long period of time, we think of the rest of the world in a similar fashion. Our thoughts, attitudes, and behavior are shaped in that environment due to survival. If you look at some of the most extreme places to live in the world for instance. An individual living in that environment has to remain emotionally strong due to extreme environmental factors. Whether that be human caused or environmentally made.

            Source: “People who are born into families that isolate children and don’t stimulate them emotionally or educationally will grow up to a disadvantage to society. Society is by nature competitive and evolutionary. You can take a thousand children with the same genetic capacities and nurturing will stratify them. We are all born with one of nine general personality types and that the nurture aspect our parents seem to emphasis what they would like rather than what we were born with.” (Kreuder)


IIIII.) Identical Twins
            1.) A study done on identical twins is the considered one of the biggest breakthroughs on the nature vs. nurture debate. What scientists found was incredible, when you take two individuals with the same genetic code and place them in two entirely different environments and analyze their differences and similarities 35 years later, the results are astounding.
                        a.) Paula Bernstein
                        b.) Elyse Schein
                        c.) Both born in New York
                        d.) Both adopted and raised in a loving environment.
                        e.) Met when the were 35 years old.
                        f.) Did not know the were apart of a secret scientific study conducted in the 1960’s and 1970’s
                        g.) Researchers followed their development to assess nature vs. nurture.
                        h.) Paula received a phone call from an adoption agency stating that she had a twin sister looking for her.
                        II.) The notion was that, “If they are reared apart, any differences between them must be attributed to differences in their environment, while similarities are mainly due to their identical heredity” (Gruber 1).

                        III.) Researchers found that despite the fact that these two wins grew up in completely different environments, they still possessed the came physical traits along with similar personalities and behaviors. Their experiences were different, but the way the responded to life was much of the same
                       

Conclusion: Like Richard Mulcaster said, “Nature makes the boy toward, nurture sees him forward”. I believe that our genetic make-up largly shapes who we are and how we will respond to stress and environmental factors. While those environmental influences shape who we are in the sense of how we view the world. Our behavior, traits, personality are both shaped by nature and nurture.


Works Cited
Barbara, Latten. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2013.

Gruber, Howard E. "Nature Vs. Nurture: A Natural Experiment." The New York Times (1981): 1. Print.

Kreuder, Kent. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2013.

Mcleod, Saul. Nature Nurture in Psychology . Simply Psychology , 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html>.

Nordqvist, Christian. What are the branches of psychology . Medical News Today, 22 June 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154874.php>.

Richman, Joe. Identical Strangers. NPR books, 25 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/2007/10/25/15629096/identical-strangers-explore-nature-vs-nurture>.