Mean Monkey Experiment

Patrick was old enough to think how others would think. He knew if he picked the wrong picture the monkey would pick the same picture so he picked the picture he did not want to give to the monkey. Patrick knew his thoughts were his own.

When the experiment was revisited at the University of Rochester they found out, “Behavioral cues play a big role in determining who holds out for that second marshmallow, and the results call into question how much self-control actually has to do with it.” (Source 2) There are some people that say that self-control does not have to do much with the experiment, however, the children that took place in the experiment in 1968 were coming up with strategies to avoid the marshmallow. They would avoid thinking about the marshmallow and did just about anything to avoid thinking about the marshmallow. Some of the other children were not able to control themselves and rang the bell almost immediately.

The University of Rochester had revisited the marshmallow experiment with a different approach by having the kids first have an encounter with an adult, one reliable and another unreliable. For this had influenced the kids decision for waiting 15 minutes on the second marshmallow. In Source 2, it says “Only one of the 14 children in the unreliable condition held out for the full 15-minute wait.” and “More than half of the kids who had just had a reliable encounter, however, made it through the 15-minute wait.”. The difference from this experiment and the first one was the encounter with the adults and it had a huge effect the kids choice.

In the experiment, Mischel and his colleagues individually tested preschoolers’ ability to delay gratification using the marshmallow test. The child would be given a plate of treats, such as marshmallows, and told the researcher had to leave for a few minutes. But, before the researcher left the child was given two options: they could wait for the researcher to return and be rewarded with two marshmallows or once the researcher left they could ring a bell and the researcher would immediately return, except the

“A man is on trial! A man who wishes to think!” In a small town drenched in summer heat, a young man named Bert Cates is put on trial for questioning the bible's teachings, and introducing the school children to Darwinism. Though the genesis of this play is the 1925 monkey trial, the setting is classified as not too long ago. This being because the right to think is always on trial in one way or another. The right to think is important because it allows society to prosper, sciences and philosophies to expand, and supports diversity of opinions .

There’s plenty of meat and stuff in the freezer, and you can have it right here and not even have to move out of the chair’’’ (2). Mary only ever want to please Patrick. She made sure everything was perfect for him and to never do anything wrong. She could not think of anything she had done to deserve such news. She immediately rejected the news and decided to pretend as if it never happened. Patrick was behaving so cruel to her while she was being nothing but nice to him. She even continued to make him dinner and he yelled at her saying not to because he is going out. This angered Mary resulting her to hit him with the leg of lamb and kill him. This shows that Mary is a sympathetic character because she was always compliant to Patrick. He had no right to disrespect her as he did.

But at the end, miraculously, they succeeded in coming together to reestablish the harmony that they may have lost forever—and Patrick can be entirely credited for this. The past event of Marianne’s rape transformed him into an emotional, somewhat sensitive adult, enlightening him to the importance of family. At the reunion, Patrick “let his hand fall on my (Judd’s) shoulder. Brotherly, affectionate” (Oates Loc 8674), illustrating the strengthened bond between the two brothers which would have been unimaginable a decade ago. Without Patrick joining in on the new, intimate amelioration, it would have been impossible for the Mulvaneys to truly reach wholeness.

Ever since science began to explain the previously unexplainable, it has caused conflicts with religion. The Scopes “Monkey” Trial of Dayton, Tennessee was one of the most talked about trials in history because it was one of the first and most publicized times that this conflict occurred. The trial showed the schism between the faithful fundamentalists and the newly formed group of evolutionists. Although the jury was reminded that they only had to decide if Scopes had broken the law, the verdict was seen as much more than that. For one of the first times in history, it seemed as if the jury had to choose either religion or evolution. For the time being, there could not be both. The Scopes “Monkey” Trial revealed the ongoing conflict with

Jaspen says “monkeys like bananas” while picking up little bananas with tongs and putting them in to the monkey mouth. Jaspen says “it’s fun for me” teacher says “is it fun for you” Jaspen agrees with a node of her head. Teacher askes “which one do you like the bunny the dog or the monkey” Jaspen says “mm the bunny”. Teacher “how many do you have their 11” Jasper replays “one two three four five”. Jaspen then continues to put the bananas in the monkey’s mouth and then starts to take them out using the tongs.

By analyzing the smallest thing he feels it will help make the betrayal easier. However when Christopher receives the dog, he stops analyzing everything and begins to only take notice of the big movements suggesting he feels more comfortable and trusts his father than he used to. He is so shocked by this that he starts to accept his father’s apology and attempt to move forward in his life. This shows that although betrayal hurts, keeping an open mind can lead to a happier and healthier

Author also surprises readers, when he introduces conflict between a couple that used to love each other deeply. Diverting the story from love to betrayal, author develops an irony. In the story, reader sees two examples of betrayal. Ms. Maloney, while talking with her tired husband, finds out her husband no longer want to keep their marriage. Without giving any kind of reason, Patrick betrays her wife with a decision of breaking marriage. Mary shocks, when her husband, boldly, says, “ This is going to be bit shock of you”(P. Maloney) Author creates a total opposite picture of Patrick by describing him as a husband who used to give her wife surprises; he is now giving her shock in the middle of her pregnancy. Mary, who was previously shown as “anxiety less”(Dahl), with “a slow smiling air”(Dahl) and “curiously tranquil”(Dahl), had began to get upset and now inculcate her eye with a “bewildered look.” After betrayed by her husband, she, without any argue, she goes to the basement to look for frozen food. She decides to have leg of a lamb as a last dinner with her husband, but she smashes the frozen leg in to Patrick’s head with killing him. Mary betrays her husband by killing him and takes revenge of her betrayal. Later, Author confirms her as a murdered with the statement of “I’ve killed him”(Mary) from her own lips. Dahl, in the story,

For Kant the presences of the good will are what make an action morally good, regardless of its consequences, and Patrick was thinking that his decision was right. I think that he will be taking care of this girl forever, because after he found Amanda he realizes that her mother will never change so he is going to feel a lot of responsibility with this girl. A detail that call my attention was that the girl’s mother said to Patrick that Amanda’s doll name was Mirabelle, and at the end of the movie when he ask to Amanda for her doll name, she answered that its name was Annabelle. This little detail means that her mother do not even know which is her daughter’s doll name, and she do not pay attention to the beautiful girl, that’s why I think that Patrick will always be taking a look to the little girl. Definitely according to Kant theory it was the right decision besides the consequences it can bring

The activity would be where Ms. Cherene started demonstrating that we were going on a boat out to the Farallon Islands, and all of a sudden our boat starts sinking, our feet are getting wet. Amongst the table groups they must decide what five items to bring from a list of twelve that Ms. Cherene had already pre-prepared. Then after the table groups had ample time to discuss we would reconvene as a group and share our ideas and then pick only five things as a whole class. After giving time for everyone to discuss his or her reasoning we would move onto the next activity. The next activity was a name game. Ms. Cherene would have them come sit on the floor and play a name game. The setting was that we were going on a picnic and everyone had to bring something, depending on what you said you were going to bring Ms. Cherene would decide whether to let you on the bus or not. Your challenge was to figure out the rule. Ms. Cherene started by saying, “ My name is Ms. Cherene and I am bring cherrios.” Then it would continue around the circle. I came shortly after her and I said, “My name is Miss Kristy and I am bringing kiwi.” She told me that I could get on the bus. After several rounds around the circle students begin figuring out the rule. The point of the two activities was to demonstrate that in science classes many times people will have different explanations for different experiments. Therefore you must be patient and willing to listen. Someone’s good explanation about why they want to bring the canvas sail instead of a bag of bow and arrows might change your mind. “You are always allowed to change your mind in science”, said Ms. Cherene. The name game was used to demonstrate that sometimes it takes people longer to understand things in science then others. Therefore, once again we have to be patient and

He had the experimenter come in dressed in a lab coat and explained that they were to ask a series of word associations to the learner and administer shocks for incorrect answers. As the number of incorrect answers increased so did the intensity of the shocks given. Voltage of the shocks ranged from 15/ slight shock to 300/danger to 450/xxx. The shocks were a form of punishment. The naïve subject was unaware that the shocks dispensed were simulated.

Paragraph 59 appears to show Patrick professing his innocence once again to his audience, the British church and Irish people. Patrick hopes for the worst to happen to him if he is guilty of doing anything wrong in the name of God and while carrying out his religious mission in Ireland. When Patrick refers to the wild beasts in this paragraph I believe he is talking about the native Irish people.