A discussion by Lanston Hughes Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

A discussion by Lanston Hughes - Essay Example families and kids now of their own but it is amplified by the awkwardness of their chance meeting in the busy park in early autumn after years of no communication, each hurrying on the way home before dark. The autumn season signifies the progression towards a time of darkness and coldness, the season of winter. This also somehow conveys the message of being in the sunset or twilight of their lives already, in middle age and soon into retirement age. The exuberance of their youth had been gone and each of them is now weighed down by their respective marital and familial responsibilities. Their sense of loss is further emphasized by the loss of time, if only they could turn back the clock and go back to their younger days when they were the best of lovers. Both of them are now a bit old, although Mary is older than Bill, since she is the elder of the two. The setting of the story is unfailingly very depressing, shown by the metaphors of fallen autumn leaves from the trees, â€Å"fell without wind.† The time of day was â€Å"autumn dusk† which is â€Å"nearly sunset† already; a few more minutes and it would be dark as night sets in. It was â€Å"cold.† Figures of speech used, such as metaphors and euphemisms symbolize the regrets of not having pursued their dreams; both are now in the autumn of their lives (Hughes, 2002, p.

The Odyssey by Homer Essay Example for Free

The Odyssey by Homer Essay In the morning, Nausicaa, daughter of King Alcinous and Queen Arete, goes with her friends to the river with the laundry and begins to wash and play games. Odysseus wakes up by their noise and, covered in salt and covering up his private parts with a leaf, travels to them. Nausicaas friends run away screaming but Nausicaa stays to listen to what the stranger has to say. Fearing that he may scare her if her were to grab her knees in supplication, Odysseus pleads with her at a distance. Nausicaa respects Odysseus and his fine words and thought and gets her friends to bathe him in the river and to clothe him. In the process, Athene divinely enhances his appearance so that he looks quite like a god. The fact that Nausicaa, without her maidservants and veil the two things that protect her person and reputation in public stays to talk to Odysseus shows her spirit and sturdiness of character. Fearing gossip, Nausicaa tells Odysseus, after inviting him to the palace to meet her parents, to wait in the grove. While there, Odysseus prays to Athene to aid him in his supplication to the king and queen. Book 6 contains an element, which although not scarce in the Odyssey, is certainly very rare in most epic poem: comedy. The comic element is unmistakeable in these scenes. Odysseus embarrassment when making his approach to the girls and right before bathing, as well as the girls terrified reactions to his nakedness, cannot help but elicit a lighter mood in the poems action, which until now had centered solely on the horrible problems faced by Odysseus and his family. Homer uses a simile to describe Odysseus as a lion (used in war situation in the Iliad which demonstrates, in this non-warfare situation that the girls viewed Odysseus as a dangerous and wild beast) and Nausicaa and the other girls as sheep. Here, the ravenous lion, buffeted by the elements but striving onward to state his all-consuming hunger on helpless sheep, is compared to the salt-covered Odysseus, ragged from days at sea, and filled with a hunger of an entirely different nature. The relation of the sheep to the girls can be seen clearly in retrospect when the girls flee before this ominous figure of male sexuality as sheep would flee before a hungry lion. This simile does not serve merely to make us once again pity the poor, travel-beaten Odysseus; it is rather an attempt to lighten the tension filling much of the first five books. BOOK 7 W HEN NAUSICAA AND HER FRIENDS HAD REACHED THE PALACE, Athene, disguised as a young girl, offers to lead Odysseus to the palace and places a magical mist around him rendering him invisible in order to evade rude questioning. Athene tell him that in order to speak to King Alcinous, he must first win favour with Queen Arete. When they reach the palace, Athene leaves and buggers off to Athens. Odysseus admires the fine palace then enters, sees Arete and grabs her knees in supplication. She allows him to see the king, who after removing one of his sons off of a chair so that Odysseus doesnt have to sit in the ash, feats with them and tells them the story of how he came to Phaeacia. The queen notices his Phaeacian clothes and Odysseus tells them about their daughters generosity. As they admire Odysseus and Nausicaa ha refused all other suitors, Alcinous hints at marriage but Odysseus stresses that he wants to go home. He is therefore promised their magic ships to sail home by. The ships can reach any destination and return in a day. Arete and the servants then prepare a bed for Odysseus and sleeps. In Book 7, we see the epitome of a motif that runs throughout the Odyssey: the relationship of host to guest. We saw the kind treatment Telemachus bestowed on Athene when was disguised as Mentes as well as the great hospitality extended to Telemachus by both Nestor and Menelaus. Now it is Odysseus himself who comes as a stranger to a foreign court and must act accordingly. Indeed, the role of a foreign visitor is one that Odysseus knows well, for he has wandered long and far and knows the customary courtesies expected by guests. Contrasted with his seasoned guest, Alcinous, although kind and benevolent as a host, is unused to receiving guests, and is initially unsure of how to react to Odysseus suit. After Odysseus has humbled himself by sitting in a heap of ashes, no one, including Alcinous, knows quite how to act. Finally, an elder named Echeneus, the oldest man of Phaeacia speaks. Echeneus tactfully reminds Alcinous of his duties as a host to a stranger. Once again, it is not Alcinous social grace and magnanimity that is lacking; it is his inexperience with situations of this sort that temporarily holds him back from action. We are also given insight into another motif of the poem: the nature of divine disguise. Alcinous suggests that Odysseus might be a god who has come to test the Phaeacians benevolence towards guests. We have already been told of the gods special love for the Phaeacians, and how the people of Phaeacia themselves are nearly divine. Now we lean that the gods manifest that love by appearing to them not disguised, but in their actual form. This gives us an indication of just how strongly Athene loves Odysseus, for she often converses with him in her pure, undistinguished form. But it is not until Odysseus once again reaches Ithaca that she will be able to do so without fear of Poseidons wrath. Homer, by mixing in some elements of magic (the forever ripe fruit and semi-divine Phaeacians) prepares the reader for the fantasy books. BOOK 17 T ELEMACHUS LEAVES EUMAEUS HUT AND GOES HOME AND IS WARMLY greeted by Eurycleia, maidservants and his mother, Penelope. He tells her to go and pray to the gods while he meets Theclymenus the seer and Peiraeus in the place of assembly. There he tells Peiraeus to hold onto his Spartan treasure until after the conflict with the suitors. Theoclymenus and Telemachus then return to the palace where Theoclymenus reveals a prophecy of Odysseus already being in the city to Penelope over dinner. Odysseus and Eumaeus then head off into the city and meet the traitorous Melanthius who both physically and verbally abuses Odysseus who manages who his peace while Eumaeus tells him off. Unshaken, the goatherd goes off into the palace. Then, as they approach the palace themselves, they see Odysseus old dog Argus is dying on top of dung. The dog wags his tail as he recognises his master after twenty years of separation and then dies. In the palace, Telemachus gives Odysseus a meal and then Athene commands Telemachus disguised father to beg from the suitors. Antinous, who was slightly provoked by Odysseus beggar, throws a footstool at him and Odysseus walks off bitterly and silently. The fact that Antinous did this, and was corrected and doomed by the other suitors, shows that he has no respect for Xenia. Penelope then decides that she wishes to speak to Odysseus as the beggar. Eumaeus, however, tries to dissuade her from this as she has heard so many false tales from men who have falsely claimed to have met Odysseus. Still, she wants to see him. But Odysseus only wants to see her after the suitors have left. She agrees and Eumaeus goes home but is asked by Telemachus to come back to the palace in the morning. Now that Odysseus has appeared before the larger Ithacan community in disguise, there is more room for the dramatic irony that fills many of the verses of The Odyssey. We see this notably during the Melanthius episode. Although Odysseus holds his peace after Melanthius attack, Eumaeus calls upon the gods to return Odysseus to his home so that he can punish the scornful goatherd. Melanthius, a loyal follower of the suitors, knows the power that will be his when Telemachus is eliminated. His own vow, of course, recoils back upon him. Melanthius wishes that Telemachus may suffer death as surely as Odysseus himself has already done so. The irony lies in the fact that Melanthius vow is fulfilled, only not in the way he had intended. Odysseus himself has not died, and is in fact standing right there. Therefore, as surely as Odysseus has not died, so too will Telemachus not die. Melanthius has unwittingly stated the truth. We see a similar use of irony later, after Antinous strikes Odysseus with the footstool. Only this time, no one specifically mentions the long-lost Odysseus. Instead the suitors remark that Antinous did badly to strike the beggar as he could have been a god testing the suitors kindness. Of course, we know Odysseus is not a god. But the gods have indeed disguised him fir the very reason that the suitors suggest: to test them and to see which are righteous and which are malevolent. It is also appropriate that Odysseus disguise makes others liken him once more to a god. Yet this time the situation is reversed. Before, Telemachus thought Odysseus a god for removing his disguise. Now, the suitors consider the possibility due to the lowly appearance of the disguise itself, not because of the majesty with which the gods envelop him when he stands revealed in his true form.

Detecting Deception From Nonverbal Behaviours

Detecting Deception From Nonverbal Behaviours Deception involves various factors that influence behaviours (Kraut, 1980). Three theoretical perspectives (the emotional, cognitive effort and attempted behavioural control) are often used to explain the relationship between deception and behavior. Depaulo, Lindsay et als (2003) meta-analysis of cues to deception summarized 158 indicators of cues and 1338 estimates from previous studies, compared to truth tellers, liars tend to have more tense voice, less pleasant looking faces, more lip pressing, show more word and sentence repetitions and speech errors. The results provided general support for the theoretical perspectives, but most of them only show a weak relationship with deception. With regard to nonverbal behavior, there is no single behavior that all liars show each time they lie, and no theoretical perspective that directly exams nonverbal behavior correlates with deception (DePaulo, Stone, Lassiter, 1985; Vrij, 2000). There are a number of physiological ways to determine whether a person is lying or not, some of them involved the use of machines, such as lie detectors; Nonverbal cues to deception vary from person to person, depending on the interpersonal differences (Ekman, 1972; Feldman Phillipot, 1993). Considering all these facts, this review is limited to nonverbal behavior cues to deception that can be detected by humans without the aid of any special equipment. It is also limited to studies of adults. However, the theoretical perspectives on nonverbal cues to deception will be summarized, the accuracy rate of detecting lies through all different types of studies will be outlined, and the reason for why only a few and rather weak relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception. Theories of deception Ekman and Friesen (1969) published the first influential theoretical statement about cues to deception. They described two categories of cues: leakage cues (the nonverbal act reveals a message otherwise being concealed) and deception cues (the nonverbal act suggest that deception is occurring but doesnt reveal the concealed message). Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1974) proposed that certain aspects of nonverbal behaviour are less controllable than others. They noted that these parts of the body such as hands and legs are rarely used in conscious communication. Hence, these parts emit more leakage than the face, because deceivers pay less attention to controlling the body. However certain paralinguistic aspects of speech, such as tone, pause and pitch, may be less controllable than either face or the body. Therefore, they are more likely to leakage (Scherer, 1986). Ekman and Friesen (1974) hold the belief that deception is associated with an increase in body movements, but research evidence showed a decrease in hand, foot and movements in actual deception (Vrij, 1995; Ekman, 1989; Depaulo, 1992). Zuckerman, Koestner and Driver (1981) found that people hold many incorrect beliefs about those specific cues to deception. People from different countries and with different professional background share beliefs about how liars behave and what they say. Therefore, measuring beliefs about cues to deception might predict which cues people use in actual lie deception (Granhag Hartwig, 2004). Forrest, Feldman and Tyler (2004) found that people with more accurate beliefs about cues to deception make better lie detectors than people with less accurate beliefs. The explanation for showing a decrease in movements might be due to stress, and behave nervously when they lie. Three theoretical perspectives that are particularly important for predicting and explain the nonverbal deceptive behaviour are emotional reactions, cognitive effort and attempted behavioural control (Zuckerman, Depaulo Rosenthal, 1981; Vrij, 2000). Although research has revealed there is no typical deceptive behaviour, some behaviours are more likely to occur during deception, for example, liars waited longer before giving an answer than truth tellers (Depaulo, Lindsay et al, 2003; Sporer Schwandt; 2006). In the emotional approach, to the extent that telling a lie is most commonly associated with three different emotions: guilt, fear and excitement (Ekman, 1989), liars experience guilt about lying as well as fear about being caught, more often than truth tellers, or they may feel excited because of the opportunity to fool others. Zuckerman et al, (1981) suggested liars might fidget more than truth tellers and make less eye contact. They also suggest fear may result in increased ph ysiological arousal, and this might lead to an increased in cues such as an increased speech hesitations (mms and ers) and speech errors. Excitement may result in behaviour sighs of joy, e.g. an increase in movements and in smiling. The cognitive effort approach assumes that it is cognitively difficult to formulate a lie consistent with what others already know. Liars will be more inclined than truth tellers to monitor and control their demeanour to make them look honest (Depaulo Kirkendol, 1989). There are evidences to suggest that people engaged in cognitive complex tasks make more speech hesitation, longer response latencies, more gaze aversion and fewer hand and arm movements (Ekman Friesen, 1972). The attempted behavioural control approach assumes liars are stressed so that may attempt to control their behaviour in order to avoid giving nonverbal cues to deception (Buller Burgoon, 1996; Ekman, 1989). For example, people hold the beliefs that liars tend more often to make spe ech hesitations, errors so that they will deliberately try to avoid making such behaviours. Nevertheless, this controlled behaviour may appear planned, rehearsed and lacking in spontaneity. However, some behaviours are not easy to control, because they are linked to strong felt emotion or high stress, such nonverbal cues may betray a lie (Ekman, 1985, 2001). Darwin (1872) suggested that muscles that are difficult to activate voluntarily might escape efforts to inhibit expression, revealing true feelings. Ekman, Roper Hager (1980) found that fewer than 25% of their subjects were able to deliberately produce several facial actions. Thus, nonverbal behaviours may nonetheless be the best source of emotional leakage of deception (Ekman Friesen 1969, 1975). All three of these processes could occur simultaneously. The occurrences of these processes should depend on the type of a lie. Emotional cues (e.g. nervous behaviours) are more likely to occur in high stake lies (Ekman Frank, 1997). Liars have to think hard when the lie is complex, therefore, cognitive load are more likely to occur in complicated lies than in easy lies (McCornack, 1997). Attempting to control behaviours may often occur in motivated liars, who actively address their behaviour and try to appear credible (Depaulo Kirkendol, 1989). However, Depaulo, Lindsay et, al,s (2003) self-presentation perspectives point out that truth tellers may also experience emotion or cognitive load. That is, they may also show nonverbal cues associated with emotion or cognitive load. Because both truth tellers and liars could face negative consequence if they are not be believed (Ofshe Leo, 1997). Moreover, truth tellers are less likely to think that it is important to make a convincing im pression on others. Therefore, they could probably show behaviour that appears suspicious (Vrij Mann, 2001). However, those theoretical perspectives may lead to opposite behaviours, for example, the emotional and cognitive load predicted an increase in speech hesitation and speech errors, whereas, the attempted control approach predicted that liars will try to control those speech disturbances in order to make them look honest, and therefore their speech will sound fluent and smooth. Buller and Burgoons (1996) interpersonal deception theory suggested that deceptive behaviour may not only be influenced by psychological variables such as emotion or motivation but also interpersonal communicative process. It emphasized that while managing their emotions and displaying credible nonverbal behaviour simultaneously, they may also monitor targets behaviours and make the appropriately turn-taking. Therefore, Buller and Burgoon (1996) predicted that deceivers in interactive contexts will display increasing fluency, smooth turn-taking and composure during the face to face communication. Based on the Zuckerman et als (1981) three perspectives, they further proposed two type of deceivers behaviours: strategic behaviours (intentional behaviours and plans to protect liars image and avoiding relationship problems) ¼Ã…’ non-strategic leakage (unintentional leakage such as physiological arousal and nervousness). As a result, motivated liar used more strategic behaviours than i nstrumentally motivated liars. Accuracy in detecting deception by observing its behaviour correlates In research studies of nonverbal cues to deception, observers are typically given video footage or sometimes audiotapes from a number of people who are either lying or telling the truth. Average accuracy in detecting deceit has rarely been above 60%, and some groups have done even worse than chance, where 50 % is chance level (Kraut, 1980; Depaulo, Zuckerman Rosenthal; 1980; Vrij Graham; 1997). Similarly accuracy rates are reported by Vrij (2000), who reviewed a series of 39 studies investigating laypersons accuracy at detecting deception and found the overall accuracy rate of 56.6%.The accuracy range in most studies is the 54% to 56%, and in none of the experiment either lower than 30% or higher than 64%. The observers showed higher accuracy rate for truthful statement (67%) compared to deceptive statement (44%), which indicated that observers are more likely to consider that messages are truthful than deceptive. It has been suggested that because most participants were lay person s, who are more often confronted with truthful than with deceptive statements in daily life (OSullivan, Ekman, Friesen, 1988). However, these findings may not be applicable to the performance of professional detectors, such as police officers. Because they are more practiced, this may increase their detection accuracy. Ekman and OSullivan (1991) examined 509 professional lie catchers to detect deceit, including law-enforcement personnel, such as members of the Secret Service, police officers, as well as college students and working adults. The results showed that certain group do better than others, it has shown that members of Secret Service (64% accuracy rate), Central Intelligence Agency (73% accuracy rates), and Sheriffs (67% accuracy rates) were better lie detector than other groups. The findings suggest that lie catchers used different information than did the inaccurate ones. They relied on more varied behaviours, and emphasized nonverbal more than verbal ones. The finding also showed that accuracy in identifying micro-expression test was correlated with overall accuracy. According to this assumption, researchers (Zuckman, Koestner Alton, 1984; Kohnken, 1987) provided information to observers based on behavioural measurements and trained them in recognizing micro-expression. They also repor ted this benefit only in judging by person they had received training. However, one reason for why even professional lie detectors showed low accuracy rates is probably because they dont know where to look at and hold the false cues to detect deceit. For example, most of police officers in this experiment used gaze aversion as a useful tool to detect deceit, but results showed is significant negatively correlated with use of gaze aversion. It has been argued that the disappointing accurate rates may due to the artificial laboratorial setting, and the negative consequences of getting caught are not high enough for liars to exhibit clear deceptive cues to observers. Mann, Vrij and Bull (2002) conducted the first real life study to examine police officers skills when they detect lies and truths that are told in real life situations. There were two limitations (suspect and police officers spoke different languages; they were of different nationalities). Mann, Vrij and Bull (2004) re-did the experiment and overcame the limitations in previous study. They exposed British police officers to fragments of videotaped real life police interviews with English-speaking suspects and asked them to detect truths and lies told by these suspects during their interviews. The result showed the accuracy rates for lies (66.16%) and truth (63.61%). The accuracy rates were higher than those found in laboratorial researches, and it also showed that accuracy was significantly positively correlated with perceived interview experience and negatively correlated with the use of stereotypical cues, e.g. gaze aversion. However, the deception real life studies that have been published are often of poor quality, most of the researchers were not able to obtain video footage, establish the ground truth satisfactorily, and fail to select comparable truth (Depaulo Friedman, 1998; Vrij, Mann, Bull, 2006). Some researchers have raised the stakes in laboratory experiment by offering money when they get away with their lies or telling them that being a good liar is an important indicator of success in a future career (Vrij, 1995; Ekman Friesen, 1974). However, the most impressive experiment with even higher stakes is conducted by Frank and Ekman (1997). Participants were given the opportunity to steal US $50. If they could convince the interviewer that they had not taken the money, they could keep all of it. If they fail to convince the interviewer and being judged as lying, they had to give the US $50 back and also lost their US 10$ participation fee, and some participants faced an additional punishment, they were told that they could have to sit on a cold metal chair inside a cramped, darkened room ominously labelled XXX, where they would have to endure anything from 10 to 40 randomly sequenced 110-decibel starting blasts of white noise over the course of one hour. The results showed that ability to detect high stake lies generalizes across high-stake situations and is most likely to produce emotional cues. However, a study like this raises ethical issues, and the punishments are never realistic. Therefore, it may not be possible to exam high-stakes lies in laboratory experiments. Reasons for the weak relationship between nonverbal cues and deception The theoretical perspective, outlined above, already predicted that research would reveal only a few relatively reliable nonverbal behaviour indicators of deception (DePaulo, Stone, Lassiter, 1985; Ekman, 1992; Vrij, 2000). Many explanations have been emerged for this limited accuracy, and several of these reasons will be discussed. One explanation for not finding infallible cues is that the scoring systems used to measure them are not detailed enough. Research on detecting accuracy showed that many nonverbal behaviours such as gaze aversion, fidgeting, and speech pause are commonly related to deception, but they are not valid cues (Vrij Semin, 1996). For example, frequency and duration of pauses combine were not related to deception. But it appeared liars pause longer but no more often than truth tellers when examining them separately. Also, Smith and Clark (1993) found that ums indicates higher cognitive load than uhs. Therefore examining them separately may be indicative of lying. But research (Davis, Markus et al, 2005) indicates that ums and uhs are associated with truthful answers rather than false ones. The distinction between cues accepted as invalid and cues validated through research is important. Ekman, Friesen and OSullivan (1988) found that liars make more false smiles than truth tellers, and truth tellers make more felt smiles. If the distinction between false and felt smiles is not made, the results would have shown that truth tellers smile as frequently as liars. Some researchers also failed to notice some specific movements liars make. Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1972) made a distinction between three hand movement categories: emblems (gestures with meaning, such as thumb up), illustrators, and self-adaptors. It has been investigated In Depaulos meta-analysis, and showed that emblems were not a diagnostic cue to deceit (Depaulo, Lindsay et al, 2003). However, Researcher may also failed to notice some others cues that are subtle and hard to detect by untrained observers (Davis, Markus et al, 2006). For example, micro-expressions of emotions are present only for a short period time, within 1/25 of a second. The second explanation could be that different people show different nonverbal cues to deceit. The nonverbal cues to deception people display may be influenced by their personality. The empirical evidences show that extraverts display different and few clues to deception than introverts (Riggio Friedman, 1983; Siegman Reynolds, 1983). It might be reasoned that introverts feel more uncomfortable in social interactions than extraverts. For people high in Machiavellianism, lying is a normal and acceptable way of achieving their goals, and they typically feel less guilt then others while lying, and they also dont find lying too cognitively complicated (Kashy Depaulo, 1996). It was also found that Machiavellians are more likely to engage in strategic self-presentation to influence others. Exline, Thibsuy et al, (1970) found people high in Machiavellianism kept more eye contact when lying than those in low Machiavellianism. People who find themselves good at acting also find lying easier (Gozna et al, 2001), and less intelligent people find it harder to lie (Ekman Frank, 1993; Vrij Mann, 2001). According to Buller and Burgoons Interpersonal Deception Theory, people who are high in Public Self-Conscious, e.g. politicians, try particularly hard to control their behaviour to make a good impression, such as exhibiting less eye contact or avoiding speech pause (Baumeister, 1984; Gallaher; 1992), but the findings couldnt be replicated in a deception experiment (Vrij, Edward, Bull, 2001). However, the nonverbal cues to deception can also be affected by ethnic origins and gender differences. For ethic origins or culture, as already discussed, people of different ethnicities hold different beliefs about cues to deception. Research (Sitton Griffin, 1981; Vrij Winkel, 1991) compared cues to deception in participants of different ethnic group, and no differences between ethnic groups were found. The difference in behaviour displayed by people from different ethnic origins may be the reason to lead to errors in lie detection, e.g. looking conversation partners in the eye. However, most of deception studies have been carried out in Western countries, and may lack cross-culture. Researchers rarely report gender differences in their detection experiment, because gender differences between truth tellers and liars are unlikely to occur, and there are no theoretical reasons why differences may occur in many situations (Hall, 2006). Although researches show no diagnostic cue to deception, a pattern emerges when the combination of cues is taken into account. Frank and Ekman (1997) found up to 80% of truths and lies could be detected when a trained observers paid attention to micro-expression, but 86% of truths and lies could be detected on the basis of a combination of micro-expression and the tone of voices (Ekman OSullivan, 1991). Its also supported by Vrij, Edward et al. (2002), found that accuracy rate 70.6% (truths) and 84.6% (lies) at detecting deceit when combines four nonverbal cues (illustrators, hesitations, latency period, and hand/finger movements). Other studies (Davis, Markus et al. 2005; Vrij, Akehurst et al, 2004) also showed high accuracy rates, which is the 71% to 78% range when researchers investigated a combination of behavioural cues. However, researchers suggest that more accuracy lie detection can be made if a combination cues is examined rather than each of cues individually. Summary and Conclusion This review focused on three major issues: (1) theoretical cues that associated with deception; (2) accuracy of lie detection based on nonverbal cues ;( 3) reasons for weak relationship and low accuracy between nonverbal behaviors and deception. The theoretical perspectives discussed above make clear that the relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception is complicated. In an extension of leakage hypothesis, outlined above (Ekman Friesen, 1969), three theoretical perspectives (the emotional, cognitive load and attempted control approach) are believed that can influence a liars nonverbal behaviors (Zuckerman, Depaulo Rosenthal, 1981). Deceivers may experience specific affects (e.g. guilt), they may be engaging in a more complicated processing, and they may also try to control their nonverbal displays. Depaulo, Lindsay et al.s (2003) meta-analysis of cues to deception provided general support for the theoretical perspectives discussed previously that cues associated with those three states may be most likely the indicators of deception. None of these approaches claim that the presence of these signs necessarily indicates deception. There are no theoretical perspectives that predict the diagnostic nonverbal cues that may only occur when people lie. Research show that human ability to detect deception simply by observing the senders behavior is poor, by showing accuracy rate vary from 45% to 60%. The professional lie detectors (e.g. police officers) also seem to perform poorly, none of the experiments showed accuracy rate higher than 75%. It has been argued that observers in experiments lack of skill and have false beliefs about cues to deception. Research has shown that observers improve their skills in detecting deceit if they received some information about relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception. Moreover, there are a number of methodological concerns. Most of the experiments are laboratory studies. Participants do not choose to lie but instructed to do by experimenter, and the stakes are never really high, but the deception filed studies also show the problem with video footage, ground truth, and comparable truths. Research showed that examining a combination of cues provided a high hit rate in accurately detecting whether someone was lying or telling the truth. Many explanations for few nonverbal cues to deception, most of the cues are invalid. It may be the result of inadequate scoring systems. It will be easier to find the agnostic cues to deception if observers examine nonverbal response in more detail. It may further make a difference if the frequency of occurrence or the duration of each deliberate behavior can be measured. For example, the onset time, offset time of micro-expression. Furthermore, group differences should also be taken into account, e.g. Machiavellianism, self-monitoring. The gender differences are also necessary to distinguish, but there is no theoretical evidence to support any of the hypotheses (Hall, 1980). More valuable information can be found by using a cluster of nonverbal cues, it can also explain why behaviors such as tension, ambivalence, pupil dilation, and lip pressing are emerged as cues to deceit. The situational factors may also affect to draw the conclusion, such as high or low stakes, motivation of li ars. Therefore, observers need to consider the individual differences and circumstances by examining their changes in behavior under similar situation. The scope of review is limited to adults, the effectiveness of deceiving may be markedly different in children. For future research on the cues to deception, more filed studies should be examined in order to have high stakes, and should also focus on the way that a person is interviewed in the real life in terms of the Interpersonal Deception Theory. A number of questions also needed to be addressed. For example, which behaviors should be clustered? Can the results of a combination of cues generalize across different situations?

picasso :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Pablo Picasso , known as one of the most influential artists of the twentieth century . I shall explore the evolution of a young Pablo Ruiz Picasso to the experienced genius that had shaped the way we see art today . From his Blue and Rose periods through the birth of Cubism , to the struggles of the experimental thirties . As we go to the death of a proud father .   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Picasso was born in Malaga on the 25th of October 1881 . The only children of the family were Pablo and his younger sister . As you know Spaniards take the name of one’s father and of one’s mother . The name Ruiz was his father’s . His mother’s was Picasso . His birth name is Pablo Ruiz Picasso . Since its such a long name its a pain to sign so he shortened it . On Pablo’s earlier canvases he signed Pablo Ruiz but later changed his name to who we know of now , Pablo Picasso . Picasso is of Italian origin and the Picasso were silversmiths . Physically Pablo resembles his mother , small and robust with a vigorous body , dark-skinned , straight not very fine black hair . Picasso used to always say that his father was like an English-man . His father , Josà © Ruiz Blasco was tall and had reddish hair and an English way of carrying himself .   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As a child Picasso was making drawings , not the drawings of a child would have but one a painter would have painted . When he was fifteen years old he would make oil portraits of his younger sister . He painted like a born painter . Then at age nineteen Picasso was off to Paris . Two months later he went back to Barcelona sold some paintings . Picasso settled in Madrid and starts the magazine â€Å" Arte Joven â€Å" with the writer Francisco de Assis Saler. Soon after Picasso goes back to Barcelona and then back to Paris again . Picasso had friends but none of where painters , no they were all writers .   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In 1902 Picasso returned to Spain and painting in his Blue period . Being in away from Spain for a while he forgot how colorless it is . The colors of Spain are white , black , silver and gold yet it was still beautiful . Span in a sense is not like other southern countries ,

Motivation and Teams Case Study

The goal-setting theory states that employees are motivated when they are given a specific goal. Mary Ellen Sheets set goals and had business plans made so she knew approximately how well the company would do. She wanted everyone to have a good experience with a business known to cause less stress and she worked hard to accomplish that. Ms. Sheets created Stick Men University to create consistently high-performing teams for her company. The franchise owners and the men who do the moving are taught everything she has learned from the initial contact with a customer to the end of the move. Franchisees and movers learn the basics—from answering a customer’s first phone call to a handshake after the move is done. The job enrichment theory states that if employees have control over how their jobs are preformed or managed they will be motivated to work better. Klaus Kleinfeld was able to negotiate with employee representatives to get work done quicker by working flexible shifts. Work that is finished quicker translates into more money and job security, two things that would motivate employees to perform their jobs better. Mr. Kleinfeld encouraged his employees to pull together to get their job done. He understood that many jobs are being outsourced to other countries and to keep their jobs it was important to work together. He works hard at knowing everything about Siemens so that he was an important part of the company and he has job security. He answered e-mails from employee reps almost immediately, even late at night. He was able to motivate people to pull together.

History Of Popular Culture

In Early Modern Europe festivals were the setting for heroes and their stories, to be celebrated by the populace. They posed a change from their everyday life. In those days people lived in remembrance of one festival and in expectance of the next. Different kinds of festivals were celebrated in different ways. There were festivals that marked an individual occasion and weren’t part of the festival calendar, like family festivals such as weddings and christenings. Some took place at the same time every year and ere for everyone, like community festivals like the different saints’ days. Pilgrimages took place all year round. Annuals festivals like Christmas and Midsummer always took place on the same day every year. In those days the average village in Western Europe celebrated at least 17 festivals annually, not counting family occasions and saints’ days. Some festivals, such as Carnival, lasted several days or sometimes even several weeks. In the Netherlands Carnival started every year at the 11th of November (St. Martin) and culminated in a big festival of ‘Dranck, pleijsier ende vrouwen’ (Drink, fun and women) at the end of the Carnival eriod, preceding the period of Lent. Festivals were meant to take the minds of the people off their everyday life, off the hard times and their work. Everyday life in Early Modern Europe was filled with rituals, both religious and secular. Songs and stories played an important role in their lives, although they sometimes adjusted the details of the legends and stories to fit the way they thought a certain festival should take place. Popular culture was mixed with ecclesiastical culture in many ways. The story of St. John the Baptist is a good example of this. The ancient ritual f bathing and lighting fires during Midsummer’s Eve was a remnant of a ritual from the pre-Christian period. Fire and water, symbols of purification, could be seen as the tools of St. John the Baptist, and therefore a combination of the two elements of popular and ecclesiastical culture was obvious. It looks as if the Medieval Church took over the festival and made it theirs. The same thing happened to the Midwinter Festival, which became linked with the birth of Christ, on 25 December. There are many more examples to be found, such as the connection between St. Martin and geese caused by the fact that the St. Martins Day (11 November) coincided with the period during which the people used to kill their geese in the period preceding the Christian period. Carnival plays a special role in popular culture in Early Modern Europe. It is a great example of a festival of images and texts. It was a popular festival, taking on different forms in different regions of Europe. Aside from regional variations, these differences were also caused by factors such as the climate, the political situation and the economical situation in an area. On a whole Carnival started in late December or early January and reached ts peak upon approaching Lent. The actual feast, taking place at the end of the festive period, could take days and would usually involve large quantities of food and drinks. The festival took place in the open air in the centre of a town or city. Within a region, the way Carnival was celebrated varied from town to town. The festival was a play, with the streets as a stage and the people as actors and spectators. They often depicted everyday life scenes and made fun of them. Informal events took place throughout the Carnival period. There was massive eating and drinking, as a way of ’stocking up’ for Lent. People sang and danced in the streets, using the special songs of Carnival, and people wore masks and fancy-dress. There was verbal aggression, insults were exchanged and satirical verses were sung. More formally structures events were concentrated in the last days of the Carnival period. These events took places in the central squares and were often organised by clubs or fraternities. The main theme during Carnival was usually ‘The World Upside Down’. Situations got turned around. It was an enactment of the world turned upside down. Men dressed up as women, women dressed up as men, the rich traded places with the poor, etc. There was physical reversal: people standing on their heads, horses going backwards and fishes flying. There was reversal of relationships between man and beast: the horse shoeing the master or the fish eating the fisherman. The other reversal was that of relationships between men: servants giving orders to their masters or men feeding children while their wives worked the fields. Many events centred on the figure of ‘Carnival’, often depicted as a fat man, cheerful and surrounded by food. The figure of ‘Lent’, for contrast, often took the form of a thin, old woman, dressed in black and hung with fish. These depictions varied in form and name in the different regions in Europe. A recurring element was the performance of a play, usually a farce. Mock battles were also a favourite pass-time during the Carnival period. Carnival usually ended with the defeat of ‘Carnival’ by ‘Lent’. This could happen in the form of the mock trial and execution of ‘Carnival’, (Bologna, Italy, 16th century), the beheading of a pig (Venice, Italy), or the burial of a sardine (Madrid, Spain). So what was the meaning of Carnival in Early Modern Europe? Was it merely an excuse for the populace to go crazy or did Carnival have a deeper eaning hidden behind the facade of food, violence and sex? Carnival was a holiday, a game. It was a time of ecstasy and liberation. The form was determined by three major themes: food, sex and violence. It was the time of indulgence, of abundance. It was also a time of intense sexual activity – tables of the seasonal movement of conceptions in 18th century France show a peak around February. Carnival was also a festival of aggression, destruction and desecration. It was the ideal time to insult or pester people who had wronged someone, often in the form of a mock battle of a football match. A time for paying off old grudges. Serious violence was not avoided and in most areas the rates of serious crimes and killings went up during Carnival. It was also a time of opposition, in more than one way. It opposed the ecclesiastical ritual of Lent. Lent was a period of fasting and abstinence of all things enjoyed by the people, not just food and drink but also sex and recreation. The elements that were taken out of life during Lent were emphasised during Carnival. All that was portrayed by the figures of ‘Carnival’ and ‘Lent’ (fat versus thin). Carnival was polysemous, meaning different things to different people in ifferent areas. In different regions, different heroes were celebrated. Sometimes elements were taken over from other regions. Carnival did not have the same importance all over Europe. In the north of Europe (Britain, Scandinavia) it was less important than in the rest of Europe. This was probably partly due to the climate which discouraged an elaborate street festival at that time of the year. In these regions, people preferred to elaborate the festivities during the Midsummer festival (St. John’s Eve). Two reasons for this are the pagan survivals that were stronger in these regions, partly because they were solated from the rest of Europe due to geographical obstacles, causing a lesser ecclesiastical influence, and the climatic situation as mentioned above. Carnival was a festival in extremis, but elements of Carnival can be found in every festival that was celebrated in Early Modern Europe. During the harvest season, all over Europe festivals and rituals were held. The harvest was celebrated, again, with elaborate drinking and eating, although in a more moderate way than the Carnival celebrations. All these festival had one thing in common: they offered the people an escape from their everyday life and a way to express themselves. It offered the people a way to vent their resentments and some form of entertainment. Festivals were an escape from their struggle to earn a living. They were something to look forward to and were a celebration of the community and a display of its ability to put on a good show. It is said that the mocking of outsiders (the neighbouring village or Jews) and animals might be seen as a dramatic expression of community solidarity. Some rituals might be seen as a form of social control, in a sense that it was a means for a community to express their discontent with certain embers of the community (charivari). The ritual of public punishment can be seen in this light, as it was used to deter people from committing crimes. Professor Max Gluckman used the African popular culture to explain the social function of the ritual of reversal of roles as it happened during rituals as Carnival. Similar rituals still occur in certain regions in Africa. Gluckman explains this ritual as an emphasis of certain rules and taboos through lifting them for a certain period of time. The apparent protests against the social order were intended to preserve and even to trengthen the established order. As a counter example Gluckman states that: â€Å"? in regions where the social order is seriously questioned, ‘rites of protest’ do not occur. † Riots and rebellions frequently took place during major festivals. Rebels and rioters employed rituals and symbols to legitimise their actions. Inhibitions against expressing hostility towards the authorities or individuals were weakened by the excitement of the festival and the consumption of large quantities of alcohol. If those factors were combined with discontent over a bad harvest, tax increases or other calamities, this ituation could get out of control. It could prove a good opportunity for people excluded from power to try and enforce certain changes. It is hardly surprising that members of the upper classes often suggested that particular festivals ought to be abolished. They felt threatened by the populace who during festivals tried to revolt against the ruling classes and change the economical situation they were in. The reform of popular festivals was instigated by the will of some of the ‘educated’ to change the attitudes and values of the rest of the population († to improve them†). This reformation took on different forms in different regions and it took place at different moments in time. There were also differences in the practices that were being reformed. Catholics and Protestants opposed to different elements of popular festivals and they did so for different reasons. Even within the Protestant movement, the views towards reformation of festivals and popular rituals varied. Missionaries on both sides worked in Europe to install their religious values in the local people. Reformers on both sides objected in particular to certain elements in popular religion. Festivals were part of popular religion or were at least disguised as an element of popular religion. The festival of Martinmas (11 November) was a good example of this. What were the objections of the authorities against these elements of popular culture in general and popular religion in particular? There were two essential religious objections. Firstly, the majority of festivals were seen as remnants of ancient paganism. Secondly, the festivals offered the people an occasion to over-indulge in immoral or offensive behaviour, at many occasions attacking the establishment (both ecclesiastical and civil). The first objection meant that reformers disliked many of the popular customs because they contained traces of ancient customs dating from pre-Christian times. Protestant reformers went very far in their objections, even denouncing a number of Catholic rituals as being pre-Christian survivals, considering the saints as successors of pagan gods and heroes, taking over their curative and protective functions. Magic was also considered a pagan remnant: the Protestants accused the Catholics of practising a pagan ritual by claiming that certain holy places held magical powers and could cure people. The reformers denounced the rituals they didn’t find fitting as being irreverent and blasphemous. Carnival and the charivaris were considered â€Å"the work of the devil†, because it made a mockery of certain godly elements the Church held sacred. The reformers thought people who didn’t honour God in their way to be heathen, doomed to spend their afterlife in eternal damnation. Flamboyance was to be chased out of all religious aspects of culture, and, where possible, out of all other aspects of life, according to the Protestant doctrine. In some areas, gesturing during church services was banned, as was laughter. All these things were seen as irreverent, making a mockery of religion. All these changes were introduced in order to create a sharper separation between the ’sacred’ and the ‘profane’. The ecclesiastical authorities were out to destroy the traditional familiarity with the sacred because â€Å"familiarity breeds irreverence. The objection against popular recreations stemmed from the idea that they were ‘vanities’, displeasing God because they were a waste of time and money and distracted people from going to church. This objection was shared by both the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The latter mainly bjected because it distracted the populace from their work, which in turn affected the revenues of the leading upper classes, or from other activities that were benefiting the rich, reasons that would vary per region. Catholic and Protestant reformers were not equally hostile to popular culture, nor were they hostile for quite the same reasons. Protestant reformers were more radical, denouncing festivals as relics of popery and looking to abolish feast-days as well as the feast that came with it, because they considered the saints that were celebrated during these festivals as remnants of a pre-Christian era. Many of these Protestant reformers were equally radical in their attacks on holy images, which they considered ‘idols’. During the end of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century Dutch churches were pillaged by Protestants trying to destroy all religious relics and images (de Beeldenstorm). Catholic reformers were more modified in their actions; they tried to reach a certain modification of popular religious culture, even trying to adapt certain elements to the Catholic way of worshipping and incorporating popular elements into their religion. They insisted that some times were holier than others, and they id object to the extend to which the holy days were celebrated with food and drink. Some argued that it was impossible to obey the rites of Lent with proper reverence and devotion if they had indulged in Carnival just before. Catholic reformers also installed rules in order to regulate certain popular festivals and rituals, such as a prohibition on dressing up as a member of the clergy during Carnival or a prohibition on dancing or performing plays in churches or churchyards. Contrary to the Protestant reformers however, the Catholic reformers did not set out to abolish estivals and rituals completely. Civil authorities had their own reasons to object to popular festivals in Early Modern Europe. Apart from taking the people away from work or other obligations, the authorities feared that during the time of a festival, the abundance of alcohol could stir up the feelings of discontent the people had been hiding all throughout the year. Misery and alcohol could create a dangerous mix that would give people the courage they needed to rebel against authorities. This was a good reason for the authorities to try and stop, or at least control, popular festivals.