To Explain Fire Setting Behaviour Psychology Essay

To Explain Fire Setting Behaviour Psychology Essay Intentional firesetting is a costly and serious form of anti social behaviour that can have devastating consequences, both personally and financially. Encapsulating this notion, fire departments in the United States confirmed that in 2007, there were over 300,000 intentionally set fires recorded, causing hundreds of fatalities, thousands of injuries and generated over a billion dollars of financial costs (Hall, 2010). The term firesetting is often used interchangeably with the legal term arson, defining the specific criminal act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to damage or defraud (Vaughn et al, 2010). Conversely, firesetting is the term used to describe to incidences whereby the deliberate setting of fires may not have been prosecuted for a variety of reasons (e.g. insufficient severity to cause damage or has not been detected as a deliberate fire; identity of the firesetter is unknown; insufficient evidence to gain a conviction; or the young age of the setter; Dickens Sugarman, 2012). Firesetting is therefore applicable to a wider scale of people who deliberately engage in setting fires, than the narrow definition of arson. Existing research suggests that such behaviour is more frequently perpetrated by child and juveniles than adults (Kolko, 1985). However recent findings show that approximately one million people in the United States, and 200,000 in UK have set a fire since the age of 15 (Dickens Sugarman, 2012), thereby suggesting firesetting often continues into adulthood (Blanco et al, 2010; Vaughn et al, 2010). Research into the potential origins of the behaviour indicates that such actions are strongly correlated with a range of individual characteristics and antecedents (Vaughn et al, 2010). What is more, firesetting is a symptom of pyromania, however as the community prevalence of this is apparently rare (Grant, Levine, Kim Potenza, 2005; Lejoyeux, Arbarateaz, McLoughlin Adà ©s, 2002), the suggestion of co-morbidity between firesetti ng and more common types of mental disorder, as found by a range of scholars (Anwar, Là ¥ngstrom, Grann Fazel 2011; Blanco et al, 2010; Bradford Dimock, 1986; Richie Huff, 1999; Vaughn et al, 2010) has been preferred. As a result, these associations have largely featured in the construction of typologies, single factor and multifactor theories that attempt to explain firesetting behaviour. This essay aims to critically assess such theories. A fundamental basis for effective assessment and treatment of criminal behaviour is awareness of, and comprehensive understanding of etiological theory. This provides a core framework from which to plot the interrelationships between an offenders presented clinical phenomena and central psychological variables. Within literature relating to sexual offending, Ward and Hudson (1998) eluded to a meaningful method of conceptualising etiological theory into two types; single factor and multi factor theories (Ward Hudson, 1998). As these figure throughout the essay, it is favourable to address each style. Single factor theories are those which focus on explaining a lone factor and its causal relationship with offending. Conversely, multifactor theories unite various single factor theories into a thorough outline of offending, providing an account of how the factors are merged to facilitate offending behaviour (Gannon, Ó Ciardha, Doley Alleyne, 2012). A further, and relatively underdeveloped form of theory absent from those detailed by Ward and Hudson (1998) is taxonomic classification, or typologies. Here, various offenders are subtyped into groups, based on shared motivational factors, personality characteristics, demographic aspects or a combination of each (Gannon Pina, 2010). These classifications represent unilateral assemblage that when deemed sufficient and reliable, play an effective role in assessment and treatment, as well as feeding into more comprehensive theories of offence behaviour (Gannon et al, 2012). Because of this reason, typologies will feature at the beginning of this evaluation. Before commencing however, it is beneficial to portray what constitutes the typical firesetter. Firstly, reports from several scholars have suggested that the majority of apprehended firesetters are white (Bennett Hess, 1984; Ritchie Huff, 1999; Rix, 1994). Concerning gender, figures confirm that male firesetters are more frequent than female firesetters, for example one study highlighted that in excess of 80% of self reported firesetters were male, equal to a male:female gender ratio approximating 5:1 (Blanco et al, 2010; Vaughn et al, 2010). In support, similar gender ratios that approach or exceeding this are common in various selected samples (Bourget Bradford, 1989; Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Stewart, 1993). Firesetting therefore, appears largely to be a male activity. In relation to age, studies have found that more than half of firesetters were aged 18-35 years, compared to 31% of the non-firesetter control population. In addition, older firesetters were found to be rare, with 4% aged 65 years and over, compared with 16% of population controls (Blanco et al; Vaughn et al, 2010). Other scholars have also reported a tendency towards youth as a risk factor (Bourget Bradford, 1989; Puri, Baxter Cordess, 1995). Therefore, firesetters appear to be generally young and moreover, a large number of studies further show that the majority of which are typically younger than non-firesetting criminals (Hurley Monahan, 1969; Rice Harris, 1991). Lastly, firesetters tend to be low achievers in education and more likely to be unemployed or unskilled than other non-firesetting offenders (Bradford,1982; Harris Rice, 1991), disadvantaged in terms of social class (Hurley Monahan, 1969) and also possess difficulties in forming long lasting relationships, as many are typically reported to be living alone and never to have married (Bourget Bradford,1989; Puri et al, 1995; Ritchie Huff, 1999; Dickens, Sugarman, Edgar, Hofberg, Tewari Ahmad, 2009). Representing the very earliest stages of theory development are typologies, of which there have been many (e.g. Icove Estepp, 1987; Inciardi, 1970; Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Rix, 1994). Perhaps the first researchers to provide a classificatory system for firesetters were Lewis and Yarnell (1951) who, using 2000 reports of firesetting identified four reasons as to why fires were set, these included: unintentionally, through delusions, through erotic pleasure and to acquire revenge (Lewis Yarnell, 1951). This early typology was pioneering since it laid the foundations for other researchers to add to (Bradford, 1982). One scholar who obliged several years later was Inciardi (1970) who examined records of paroled firesetters released from state prisons over a six year period and observed six categories of firesetter: institutionalised, insurance claim, vandalism, crime concealment, excitement and revenge (Inciardi, 1970). A key strength of Inciardis (1970) work was the amount of participants studied, but another was that there were similarities between two of the categorisations proposed by himself, and Lewis and Yarnell (1951). This is significant as the presence of these categories within firesetting can be linked to and supported by other empirical findings. For example, in reference to their erotic pleasure (Lewis Yarnell, 1951) and excitement (Inciardi, 1970) categories, these hold particular relevance to symptoms of pyromania (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), an impulsive disorder characterised by intense fascination with and a desire to associate oneself with fire and fire paraphernalia, though as there are many diagnostic restrictions, the prevalence of pyromania is rare (Doley, 2003). An additional similarity seen between the two typologies (Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Incairdi, 1970) is the inclusion of revenge as a category, which is supported as a motive for firesetting by many scholars (e.g. Koson Dvoskin, 1982; Pettiway, 1987; Rix, 1994). A key criticism of the typologies proposed by Inciardi (1970) and similar ones that followed (e.g, Dennet, 1980; Icove Estepp, 1987; Rautaheimo, 1989) was that their categories were generally too broad (Gannon et al, 2012). Therefore, later typologies used a smaller number of categories using data driven strategies (e.g. Almond, Duggan, Shine Canter, 2005; Canter Fritzon, 1998; Harris Rice, 1996; Rice Harris, 1991), providing an empirically stronger classification of firesetters (Gannon et al, 2012). One such example by Rice and Harris (1996) investigated 11 variables thought to be closely associated with firesetting, in a sample of 243 mentally disordered firesetters. They discovered four categories labelled as: psychotics (motivated by delusions and characterised by few incidents), unassertives (motivated mainly by anger or vengeance and characterised by low assertiveness), multifiresetters (primarily set fires in institutions and characterised by poor developmental experience s), and criminals (likely to operate at night, characterised by poor developmental experiences and, personality disorder) (Rice Harris, 1996). Rice and Harriss (1996) typology is possibly one of the strongest available as not only does it state the criteria required for group membership, but many of their aspects above are supported by empirical research (Gannon et al, 2012). For instance, the presence of personality disorder in Rice and Harriss (1996) criminal category is supported by findings that show antisocial personality disorder is particularly common in firesetters (APA, 2000; Bradford, 1982; Kolko, 1985; Kolko Kazdin, 1991). This is in addition to support for the presence of delusions as a motivation for firesetting, since a link between firesetting and schizophrenia has also been demonstrated (Geller, 1987; McKerracher Dacre, 1966; Richie Huff, 1999). One could argue however, that the presence of psychopathology within Rice Harriss (1996) sample was expected, as it was limited to those who were mentally disordered (Gannon et al, 2012). Although one of the adjudged reasons identified by Lewis and Yarnell (1951) as to why a fire may be set was through delusions (Lewis Yarnell, 1951), and this research was based on a sample free from mental disorder. Shared characteristics of firesetters identified in typologies often help to initiate scholars to explain these through psychological theory, thus our attention is now shifted towards single factor theories of firesetting. Possibly the earliest single factor theory was proposed by Freud (1932), later elaborated upon by other authors (Gold, 1932; Macht Mack, 1968). Here it was hypothesised that firesetting originates from either a urethral or oral fixated sexual drive. Firstly, youngsters are believed to experience enuresis as a means of attempting to extinguish firesetting occurring in dreams and secondly, firesetting is seen to symbolise repressed sexual urges (Gannon Pina, 2010). Other psychodynamic accounts made use of instinctual drives, such as aggression and anxiety to explain firesetting (e.g. Kaufman, Heims Reiser, 1961). However as there is a notorious lack of empirical evidence to offer support to psychodynamic theory (Hollin, 2013), it is unsurprising that there is litt le support this, or the suggestion that that those who set fires find the act sexually arousing (Rice Harris, 1991; Quinsey, Chaplin Upfold, 1989), or that there is a high rate of enuresis amongst firesetters. In contrast, considerably more praise has been gathered by researchers focusing on the role of biology and neurological impairment in order to explain firesetting behaviour (Gannon Pina, 2010). For example, evidence suggests that firesetters have decreased concentrations of cerebrospinal fluid monomaine metabolites (Roy, Virkkunen, Guthrie Linnoila, 1986; Virkkunen, Nuutila, Goodwin Linnoila, 1987; Virkkunen, Dejongm Bartko Linnoila, 1989). Furthermore, Virkkunen et al (1989) found that recidivist firesetters were those most likely to have such abnormalities relative to non-recidivist firesetting, therefore suggesting that such abnormal neurotransmitter defects could account for prolonged and impulsive cases of firesetting. However as firesetting is often co-morbid with impulse disorder (Lidberg, Belfrage, Bertilsson, Evenden Ã…sberg, 2000), such abnormalities are unlikely to be specific to the act of firesetting itself. Perhaps the most supported concept relating to neuropsychological and biological theories of firesetting, is through brain injury. Evidence has found 28% of arsonists referred to forensic psychiatry services had a history of brain injury (Puri et al, 1995) and furthermore, abnormal electroencephalography readings were found amongst arsonists also when compared to non-offending and other offending controls (Bradford, 1982; Hill et al, 1982). Here it is believed that such trauma may exert an exaggerating force that leads one to engage in firesetting behaviour (Kolko, 2002). One main area of praise for biological perspectives of firesetting is that they offer promise for rehabilitation, depending on the nature of the abnormality (e.g. provision of serotoninergic drugs for offenders with low levels of cerebrospinal fluid monomaine metabolites; JoviĆ¡, MirkovĆ¡, MajiĆ¡-Singh MilovanoviĆ¡, 1999). However, cases of firesetting associated solely on biological causes are rare, meaning this may limit professional examination of psychological and sociological factors that are also likely to be associated with firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). The final and most contemporary single factor theory of firesetting left to address is Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1976). The main assertion here is that firesetting is the product of reinforcement contingencies and learning through modelling or imitation (Bandura, 1976; Kolko Kazdin, 1986; Macht Mack, 1968; Singer Hensley, 2004). For example, Vreeland and Levin (1980) propose that firesetting can be instantly reinforcing via sensory excitement connected to fire, in addition to the sirens, noise and crowds elicited by fire (Vreelin Levin, 1980). Furthermore, as positive reinforcement does not necessarily need to be directly experienced for social learning to transpire, learning associated with fire may occur vicariously through mere exposure to fires (legitimate or illegitimate), or key models of firesetting behaviour (e.g. parents and caregivers; Gannon et al, 2012). In support, there is key evidence showing firstly, that firesetters fathers occupations often involve consid erable exposure to fire (e.g. firemen; Stewart, 1993). Secondly, firesetters tend to be raised in environments where fire is more pervasive (e.g. countryside locations; Wolford, 1972), or used as punishment (Ritvo, Shanok Lewis, 1983). And finally, firesetters often orginate from families with a history of firesetting (Rice Harris, 1991). Social Learning Theory can also be applied in conjunction with earlier discussion of firesetting typologies, of which a common category proposed was firesetting that related to revenge or was anger induced (Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Inciardi, 1970; Rice Harris, 1996). For example, Social Learning Theory forecasts that self-regulatory responses are created as a product of reinforcement contingencies. Consequently, poor childhood socialisation personified through exposure to negative developmental experiences and role models are likely to result in aggression, poor coping skills and a lack of assertiveness (Gannon Pina, 2010). As there is a wealth of evidence to support the presence of such traits amongst firesetters (e.g. Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1969; Jackson et al, 1987; Rice Chaplin, 1979; Rice Harris, 2008; Root, Mackay, Henderson, Del Bove Warling, 2008; Showers Pickrell, 1987; Smith Short, 1995), these are likely to incline individuals towards reckless behaviours (Nagin Pate rnoster, 1993) and launch a propensity to light fires to gain positive environmental control (Vreeland Levin, 1980). Thus Social Learning Theory foretells that various developmental experiences, cues, cognitive perceptions and expectations shape a persons proclivity for firesetting, notably as a form of learnt aggression (Gannon Pina, 2010). However one key limitation is that it is unclear which combination of factors culminates in facilitating other forms of firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). The final type of theory to consider addresses key features of previous theories to present a more holistic view to the path of firesetting, known as multifactor theories. Here, interactions are explicitly defined between individual characteristics and features of the social environmental that are integral to the decision to offend. Within this perspective there are two main approaches to consider. The first of which used Functional Analysis Theory principles (Sturmey, 2008), to explain firesetting as an interaction of antecedents and behavioural consequences (Jackson et al, 1987). Referring to their clinical experience of firesetters, research literature and tenets of Social Learning Theory, Jackson et al (1987) formulated the core associative links hypothesised to produce and reinforce firesetting. Regarding antecedents, five factors were assumed: psychosocial disadvantage, life dissatisfaction and self loathing, social ineffectiveness, factors determining the individuals experienc es of fire and internal or external firesetting triggers (Jackson et al, 1987). Within this paradigm, firesetters are viewed as individuals who, throughout their early years experience significant social difficulties and are unable to satisfy their emotional and social needs through appropriate means (Jackson et al, 1987). However, involvement in fire and fire paraphernalia allows for some control to be exerted over their environment, which is ordinarily unobtainable to them. This is in addition to increased attention from distracted or distanced caregivers such that fire interest is positively reinforced. Such increases in personal effectiveness and self esteem, alongside sensory stimulation of the fire therefore increases interest in fire, thereby mounting the likelihood of firesetting in the future (Gannon et al, 2012). Jackson et al further add that negative reinforcement priniciples may play an equally important role in developing and maintaining firesetting. Here they suggest punitive consequences of firesetting (e.g. rejection, punishment, intense and increased supervision) may strengthen the offenders personal inadequacies already experienced, such that firesetting behaviours are continued (Jackson et al, 1987). A main strength of the Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987) is that there is a wealth of evidence available that favours the hypothesised association between firesetting and psychosocial disadvantage (e.g. Blackburn, 1993; Geller, 1987, Hollin, 1989; Inciardi, 1970). For example, as well as being generally psychiatrically disturbed (Barnett Spitzer, 1994), many firesetters suffer specifically from depression, low self esteem and substance abuse (Coid, Wilkins Coid, 1999; Puri et al, 1995; Repo, 1998). Whats more, researchers also note specifically that firesetters are frequently socially inept and experience maladjustment across several life domains, such as education and employment and peer personal relations (Bradford, 1982; Harris Rice, 1984; OSullivan Kelleher, 1982; Vreeland Levin, 1980). Although, many of these psychosocial variables are found to be common among other types of offender (Hurley Monahan, 1969), therefore it may not be wise to generalise such fin dings wholly to firesetters. Nevertheless, Jackson et als work is deserving of praise in its unification of isolated findings and hypotheses together into one whole (Gannon Pina, 2010), coupled with its relevance for clinicians, helping to underpin and guide contemporary treatment for firesetting (Swaffer, Haggert Oxley, 2001; Taylor, Thorne Slavin, 2004). As in Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987), the other multifactor theory of firesetting known as the Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1980; 1995), followed the view that such behaviour is a product of historical psychosocial influences that shape a persons tendency to set fires through social learning experiences. The theory stipulates that firesetting is the result of an interaction between historical factors predisposing antisocial actions (e.g. social disadvantage), previous and existing environmental reinforcers (e.g. childhood experiences) and instant environmental reinforcers (e.g. external, internal sensory reinforcement) (Fineman, 1995). The latter is further split into numerous variables that Fineman (1995) argues should be explored by clinicians. These include, impulsivity triggers (e.g. rejection or trauma), crime scene features that may provide reasoning behind such behaviour (e.g. target of a specific individual), cognitions and affects prior to, during an d post firesetting, and lastly any external (e.g. financial reward) or internal reinforcers (e.g. satisfaction or sensory satisfaction). Fineman (1995) ultimately hypothesises that firesetting stems from the culmination of interactions between these aforementioned factors, proceeding to recommend careful investigation of each when assessing and treating firesetters (Fineman, 1995). Akin to Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987), Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1995) plays a key role in developing professional understanding of firesetting. A specific strength of this theory was that the attention paid to the more proximal variables related to firesetting, as this expresses how crucial psychological factors contribute to the development and maintenance of firesetting behaviour (Gannon Pina, 2010). Away from these strengths however, is the problem that empirical support for this theory has largely been limited to findings from juvenile firesetters, meaning many mechanisms associated with adult firesetting are left unexplained by this theory (Gannon et al, 2012). This evaluation has shown that the majority of empirical work undertaken with firesetters has focused on the production of typological classificatory systems and the examination of firesetters psychopathological and sociodemographical features. This information is useful in gaining an essential understanding of a variety of motives behind firesetting behaviour and has paved the way for scholars to address the underlying meaning of such motives through etiological theory. This in turn aims to help deliver effective treatments to firesetters. In response, several single factor theories have been applied to explain firesetting, however these are unable to explain the myriad of features that typically interact to facilitate and maintain firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). Though, one key addition to single factor theories is Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1976; Vreeland Levin, 1980), of which key aspects featured throughout both available multifactor theories of firesetting, Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987) and Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1980; 1995). Both multifactor theories hold several strengths, particularly their focus on developmental experiences as a factor explaining interest in, and reinforcement of firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). However, despite being the most appropriate method of explaining firesetting, absent from their accounts is any reference to the full range of risk factors or criminogenic needs associated with the broad range of firesetting behaviours, nor is there acknowledgement of the potential factors linked with a desistence from firesetting (Gannon et al, 2012). This inevitably led to the recent development of the Multi-Trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting (Gannon et al, 2012) not discussed in specific detail here, but which integrated the current theory, typological, and research findings considered throughout this essay into one sizeable etiological theory of firesetting and its maintenance and desistence.

Complexometric determination of water hardness Essay

Introduction: The purpose of this experiment is to determine the hardness of a sample of water (#89). Water hardness can be evaluated by an acid-base neutralization titration. (When an acid and a base are placed together, they react to neutralize the acid and base properties, producing a salt.) From the Bronsted-Lowry acid-base reaction theory, the H+ cation of the acid combines with the OH- anion of the base to form water. In this titration experiment, there are no definitive acidic or basic agents being evaluated. This requires the use of the Lewis acid-base theory. Instead of defining acid-base reactions in terms of protons or other bonded substances, the Lewis definition defines a base (referred to as a Lewis base) to be a compound that can donate an electron pair, and an acid (a Lewis acid) to be a compound that can receive this electron pair. Similarly, in either type of acid-base neutralization experiment, an indicator is used to display when the solution is neutralized. The standardized Na2EDTA water solution is will be titrated against the unknown water sample (#89). Upon neutralization, the unknown water sample’s metal cation electrons will transfer to the Na2EDTA solution and will subsequently remove the sodium from the EDTA. (Unknown #89)2+ + Na2EDTA → (Unknown #89)EDTA + 2Na+ Water hardness is expressed in in milligrams per liter. Procedure: The first thing to be done was to manufacture the 0.004 M Na2EDTA solution. This was done by adding 0.7319 g Na2EDTA to approximately 500 mL of DI water. I obtained a 50.0mL burret, a 10.00 mL and a 25.00 mL transfer pipet, and the unknown sample (#89) from the stockroom. The 50.0 mL burret was set in the burret stand. The Na2EDTA was in the burret and CaCO3 solution was in a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The CaCO3 solution was comprised of 10.00 mL of 1.000g CaCO3/mL, approximately 30mL of DI water, 2.5 – 3.5 mL of buffer (ammonia/ammonium chloride), and 4 drops of Eriochrome Black T indicator. The Na2EDTA was being titrated against the CaCO3 while simultaneously being mixed by a magnetic stir bar in the 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The titration was run to completion when theCaCO3 solution turned from a violet to a blue color change. This was done three times for the standardization of the Na2EDTA. The titration for the now standardized Na2EDTA solution against the unknown water sample #89 follows a similar procedure as the first titration except the contents of the 250 mL differ. The Unknown sample solution was comprised of 25.00 mL of unknown, approximately 20 mL of DI water, 2.5 – 3.5 mL of buffer (ammonia/ammonium chloride), and 4 drops of Eriochrome Black T indicator. The Na2EDTA was being titrated against the Unknown while simultaneously being mixed by a magnetic stir bar in the 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The titration was run to completion when the unknown solution turned from a violet to a blue color change. This was done three times to determine the hardness of water sample #89. Experimental Data & Calculations: 1). Na2EDTA & CaCO3 titration. Na2EDTA solution: 0.7319 g & 500 mL DI Water Trial #1: CaCo3 Solution Na2EDTA Solution 10 mL 1.000g CaCO3/L 31 mL DI water V0 = 0.60 mL 3.4 mL Buffer Vf = 25.20 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 24.60 mL Trial #2: 10 mL 1.000g CaCO3/L 30 mL DI water V0 = 0.60 mL 3.3 mL Buffer Vf = 23.92 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 23.22 mL Trial #3: 10 mL 1.000g CaCO3/L 30 mL DI water V0 = 0.50 mL 3.3 mL Buffer Vf = 24.23 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 23.73 mL 2). Na2EDTA & Unknown water sample #89 titration. Trial #1: Unknown Solution Na2EDTA Solution 25 mL Unknown sample 20 mL DI water V0 = 0.88 mL 3.0 mL Buffer Vf = 13.80 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 12.92 mL Trial #2: 25 mL Unknown sample 21 mL DI water V0 = 18.60 mL 3.1 mL Buffer Vf = 30.80 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 12.20 mL Trial #3: 25 mL Unknown sample 20 mL DI water V0 = 30.80 mL 2.9 mL Buffer Vf = 43.20 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 12.20 mL Na2EDTA molarity equation: Na2EDTA ΔV Na2EDTA molarity Trail #1 = 24.6 mL 0.0040 M Trail #2 = 23.22 mL 0.0042 M Trail #3 = 23.73 mL 0.0042 M Na2EDTA mean molarity: Absolute Deviation: Trail #1 = 0.0001 M Na2EDTA Trail #2 = 0.0001 M Na2EDTA Trail #3 = 0.0001 M Na2EDTA Estimated precision: Estimated precision = 0.1 ppt. Calculating Water Hardness (parts per million): M mol Na2EDTA = [Na2EDTA]mean = 0.0041 M Trail #1 ΔV = 12.92 mL = 216.4 ppm Trail #2 ΔV = 12.20 mL= 204.3 ppm Trail #3 ΔV = 12.20 mL= 207.7 ppm Parts Per Million Mean Calculation : Discussion: There are two tangibles that I feel may have affected the results of my calculations. The first was being able to use the transfer pipet correctly. I recall two trials where there was a combination of having bubbles in the pipet and adding an excess of the limiting reagent. The other struggle for me in this lab was being able to effectively determine the reaction’s completion by color change. An unnecessary excess of NaEDTA may have been added to determine the reactions completion. These two pitfalls in my method can explain for the error in my work. For practical purpose, water hardness values less than 60 ppm is â€Å"soft†, while water with more than 200 ppm is considered â€Å"hard.† The analysis of my unknown sample came out to be 209 ppm, a â€Å"hard† water sample. To present some validity to my result, I can briefly compare the water hardness’s of my unknown water sample to the 1.000 g CaCO3. The CaCO3 solution has a hardness of 1000 ppm and my calculated unknown has a hardness of 209 ppm. Since the CaCO3 has a higher hardness value, this is why it took more Na2EDTA to neutralize it in the first sets of titrations. This assures me that my calculated result should be less than 1000 pmm.

Discusses Confucius contributions Essay

Confucius’ life was of tremendous importance in the forming of Chinese culture. Confucius’ plan and simple approach to life, revealed his deep seeded beliefs that through great human effort one can shape their own future. He had great faith in the ordinary man and believed that they are teachable and perfectible. Confucius believed that ordinary humans could be come awe-inspiring with wisdom and great knowledge. The quest to improve one’s â€Å"self† became deeply rooted in the Confucian heritage. Confucius’ concept of moral rectitude was considered part of the pursuit to becoming the perfected person. Confucius was devoted to learning and teaching. His teaching emphasized self-improvement and moral rectitude. When his words â€Å"for the sake of the self† are explored it becomes clear Confucius was constant in his belief of self-improvement through out his life and his work. Confucius was a philosopher, teacher and political figure that lived from (551-479 BC) in the state of Lu, now know as the Shandong province. He was a member of the minor aristocracy and bureaucratic class during that time. By the time of his birth, his family had apparently become poverty-stricken. He was known for his conservation of the traditions of ritual and music of the Chou civilization. At an early age, it was apparent that Confucius was dedicated to learning. Confucius’ father died when he was three years old and this probably had a huge impact on his family’s class. The lose of his father and his family being poverty-stricken must have been key factors that set him upon his ambitious journey to improve human kind, governments and society. His mother was his first teacher and he developed an emphatic quest for knowledge. It was a common practice for aristocratic families to hire tutors to educate their sons, but Confucius was one of the first persons to devote himself totally to learning and teaching for the sole purpose of transforming and improving society. Confucius was also a dedicated government servant. He served in government posts where he managed stables and kept books. At the age of nineteen Confucius married a woman of similar background. Confucius’ early influences are all contributing factors that made him a young and wise  scholar during his time. Confucius concept of â€Å"moral rectitude† was evident because he wanted to make education available to all men. He believed everyone could benefit from learning and self-cultivation. Confucius established a humanities program for leaders, paved the way for education to all and redefined learning as not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also as a character builder. Confucius primary role of education was to provide the proper way of training noblemen. This education would consist of continuous self-improvement and frequent social interaction. To personally achieve the goal â€Å"for the sake of the self†, Confucius mastered six arts: ritual, music, archer, charioteering, calligraphy and arithmetic. The art that became most important was that of â€Å"ritual†. Confucius was actively involved with the government. It was his desire to have a rebirth of the ideas and institution of a past golden age. Confucius hoped to integrate the ritual of those times into the government and family life. He believed this could only happen with ideal rulers such as the legendary sage-kings Yao and Shun. Confucius believed that the ethic of an ideal ruler would translate to a moral state. The ideal ruler would cultivate virtues of benevolence toward others, a general sense of doing what is right, loyalty and diligence in serving one’s superiors. The â€Å"moral rectitude† according to Confucius could also be taught and handed down by performing rituals. Ritual acted as guidelines for people to follow in any given social situations. Ritual could vary considerably depending on age, social status and gender. Confucius contributed to some specific rituals and values but also the importance of the past and hierarchy of the social classes. Rituals be came â€Å"the way† to act. Most East Asian societies continue to be influenced by Confucius teachings, valuing the community, the family, and other social relationships over individuality and uniqueness. The Confucius influence encourages support of education and learning from books and from the past, refinement of social rituals to smooth the relationships of people in a community. The western  culture has vastly deviated from Confucius teaching. Each day the western culture ignores more rituals and become more self-absorbed. A glance at today’s headlines or reality TV makes this obvious. Today there are still some existing rituals and moral behavior, but the boundaries blur with each generation. What Confucius provided was a definition of ethics and morally characterized by personal actions and rituals. A simple way to understand Confucius thoughts is to gain an appreciation of the varying levels of honesty. Over time, they developed into the following form: *Li – ritual. Propriety or politeness, Etiquette. This concept originally meant to sacrifice. The term later expanded to secular ceremonial behaviors and then even more diffuse mean, that of propriety or politeness. This expanded the term to everyday life situations. Confucius was revered as the authority on ritual behavior. *Ziao or Hsiao – filial piety. Respect and obedience. The was considered to be the greatest virtue and was shown towards the living and dead. The term ‘filial’ means â€Å"of a son† and therefore denotes that a son should have respect and obedience to his parents. This term was expanded to other relationships such as ruler and subject, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, and that between friends. The duties and ritual where prescribed for each of these relationships. Eventually this term was integrated into the Chinese legal system. An example of this would be that a child would be punished more harshly if the crime were against a parent. *Zhong or Chung – loyalty. This term is equivalent to filial piety, but on a different level. This term apply predominantly to the social classes of ruler and minister. In a case of Zhong, a minister should obey the ruler because he has the higher (anointed by god) authority and therefore that maked it the right thing to do. *Ren or Jen – humanness. The relates to the â€Å"Golden Rule† This term is best described by Confucius version of the Golden Rule, â€Å"Do not do to other what  you would not like them to do to you.† *Junzi or Chun-Tzu – the gentleman. The ideal towards which all strive. This term mean â€Å"son of a ruler†. This term implies that a gentleman are always expected to act as moral guides to the rest of society. Gentlemen are those who cultivate themselves morally and who personify the other characteristics of honestly. Confucius is exclamatory of this concept Confucius was a man of great vision. The politics of his time did not allow his philosophy to flourish, but he did provide an awakening to human king. He was perceived then and now as a heroic conscience. Confucius teaching remains enormously influence today, but unfortunately, they are not always taken to heart or practiced. Today’s politicians could learn much from his teaching. One of Confucius’s principal legacies, the notion of the enlightened civil servant, is not a prevalent as it should be in the modern word. Humankind moves forward, but sometimes we forget to bring the greatness of our history with us.

French Revolution Impact On Romantic Poetry - 1829 Words

French Revolution Effects on Romantic Poetry During the nineteenth century, one of the most crucial events to have influenced British society were French Revolution ideals. Their beliefs of liberty and freedom were upon some of the most cherished in life. As Romantics appreciated imagination, emotion, and nature, they were prompted to adopt these French beliefs in a newly profound manner. Romantic poets had broken down boundaries not just in poetry, but in the lives of the British as well. As this shift occurred, women perceived their lack of equality, as they were disheartened to obtain knowledge. Some of the most well-known poets during the Romantic era were William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Mary Wollstonecraft - all whom†¦show more content†¦Even if it was the dark side of nature, it was always incorporated in some way. They found nature to be kind and good, unlike the corruption that existed in society. This was a way to escape to their ideal and satisfying world. As Romantic poetry had many forms ar ound the world, emotion and imagination were always included as if aided in personal expression. It was once declared that â€Å"Poetry is the spontaneous outflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility (Wordsworth 263). In England, individualism was declared through lyrical poetry. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth were two of the pivotal poets to have use lyric poetry. They published their collection of poems in Lyrical Ballads (1789). Many more poets followed to publish their own lyric poems. Evidence in Wordsworth’s and Coleridge’s Poems The Convict by William Wordsworth, deals with human imprisonment upon the mental state of the individual and in society. â€Å"The Convict† is any individual who has been confined in some type of manner, whether it be mentally or physically. During the French Revolution, that individual was anyone from the lower class. Many were victims of, â€Å"the abuse of power by the aristocracy† (Gravil 20). Wordsworth had great empathy toward those who were restricted: â€Å"And with a deep sadness I turned, to repair / To the cell where the convict is laid† (Wordsworth 7-8). Wordsworth implied thatShow MoreRelatedInfluences of the Romantic Period1575 Words   |  7 PagesInfluences on the Romantic Period Romanticism spawned in the late 18th century and flourished in the early and mid-19th century. Romanticism emphasized the irrational, the imaginative, the personal, the spontaneous, the emotional, the visionary, the transcendental, and the individual. Romanticism is often viewed as a rejection of the ideologies of Classicism and Neoclassicisms, namely calm, order, harmony, idealization, rationality and balance. Some characteristics of Romanticism include: emotionRead MoreEssay on The Romantic Era a.k.a. the Enlightment Era649 Words   |  3 PagesThe romantic era was mostly considered the enlightenment era because it brought change to the way a person would look at nature and themselves. This changed how people imagined things. By the end of the 19th century the romantic era was started. Many artisans took this change to make literature, music, and poetry more emotional and self-embodiment. During this time period artists became famous and inspired many people with their works. Caspar David Friedrich was a famous artist who lived from 1774-1840Read MoreRomanticism : Romanticism And Romanticism1444 Words   |  6 Pagestime 1750 to 1870 in Europe, Latin America and The United States. Romantic Movement didn’t reach to France until the 1820’s. Romanticism main spirit was against of rule, law and formulas that classicism the different characterized of general in 18th century. Imagination, Subjectivity of approach, freedom, Expression and the idealization of nature will be focused in movement of Romantic Literature. In this period industrial revolution with the social and political norms form as age of enlightenmentRead MoreRomanticism Movement ( 1750-1870 )1223 Words   |  5 PagesRomanticism was a period time between 1750 to 1870 in Europe, Latin America and The United States. Imagination, Subjectivity of approach, freedom, Expression and the idealization of nature will be focused in movement of Romantic Literature. In this period of time industrial revolution with the social and political norms form as age of enlightenment and against of scientific rationalization of nature. Some Literature element of that period will be emotional, imagination and suspense. Romanticism movementRead MoreImpact of the 1789 French Revolution on Literature3917 Words   |  16 Pagesï » ¿Impact of 1789 French Revolution on Literature Introduction - Outline ONE: Pre-Revolution Attitudes in France freedom of expression was repressed to a degree that became intolerable the pre-Revolution literature reflected and related to the upper class in France the French language was considered the Kings language and for those extolling the virtues of the king; the great bulk of the French population used Latin TWO: The Romantic Movement Following the Revolution of 1789 albeit theRead More Lyrical Ballads Captures The Hour of Feeling Essay1207 Words   |  5 Pages Lyrical Ballads were written in a time of great change. They were dominated by the French Revolution and both Wordsworth and Coleridge felt great impact from this. There was disruption all over with the American War of Independence and other wars worldwide. Britain itself was changing rapidly due to colonial expansion, which brought new wealth, ideas and fashion, and there was much disturbance to both the people and the land with the act of enclosure, which may have meant more effective farmingRead MoreCharacteristics Of Romantic Poetry By William Blake1051 Words   |  5 PagesEmily Woolverton Professor Balding English 2320 February 26, 2016 Characteristics of Romantic Poetry The start of the Romantics was the start of a new period in poetry. Romantic poetry developed after more and more people began to let their emotion become a bigger part of their life. These Romantics wanted to express how they felt, rather than what they thought about science and reason. This brought on the change in how genders, races, and different classes were viewed. Less people participatedRead MoreWilliam Wordsworth And Lord Byron1102 Words   |  5 Pagesthe forces of the French Revolution, William Wordsworth and Lord Byron sought to change the poetry of the era by enriching it with emotion. William Wordsworth, known for his poem,  ¨Tintern Abbey ¨ elucidates a feeling of solitude throughout, as he relates to the nature around him. Contrary to Wordsworth ´s work, Lord Byron creates a harsh tone by explaining the insignificance of mankind in his poem,  ¨Apostrophe to the Ocean ¨. Wordsworth ´s poem  ¨Tintern Abbey ¨ exemplifies Romantic philosophy with aRead Mo reAspects Of Romanticism1825 Words   |  8 PagesAspects of romanticism The main aspects of Romantic literature focuses on emotions and the narrator’s inner world, celebrating nature, beauty and most importantly imagination. This literatic era rejects everything that has to do with rationalism, religion or industrialization which were very important in the 1800s, however, not liked much by literary figures. Many poems which were written after the late 1700s reflect on the elements of romanticism. The experimental language and the interest inRead More Samuel Taylor Coleridge Essay1981 Words   |  8 PagesSamuel Taylor Coleridge The French and American Revolutions had an enormous impact on the early Romantic thinkers like Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth. The aristocracies that had been controlling Europe were beginning to fall, the middle class began to grow and power was increasingly falling into the hands of the common people. This may explain why the poetry that Coleridge and Wordsworth produced was aimed at the common man, rather than the educated aristocrats. This meant a