Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

[hitogoroshi]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

Ah. It's a new paper, but that figure was from a book I'm not so sure about.
You'd think by now we'd have made the nanocrystal ones already...

[Magus]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

It was for Film History II- Sound Film, and yes it was for my major. This was my final paper for the class and I got a C+ and I don't know why.

I took a Japanese film class this past semester with similar results. Waste of goddamn time and money, the professor was an asshat. But he's a published asshat so I must be wrong!

COLLEGE IS BAD.

[John Mora]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

I assume that this topic is ignoring the fact that most of us use more than a little BS to flesh out our school papers and we'll be able to glean anything from them at all.

[Starba]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

I assume that this topic is ignoring the fact that most of us use more than a little BS to flesh out our school papers and we'll be able to glean anything from them at all.

No, Trollie McObvious, nobody who reads this topic has the sense to tell the difference between the definitive book on Fact and a paper somebody in high school/college wrote about it. C'mon, I said in the intro that this is about getting to know each other and our interests, not what we're writing about. Just like Wikipedia, these aren't quotable sources, just things we care about and think are fascinating. If you don't think knowing what your friends find interesting is important, then you don't have to post in this topic. That doesn't give you carte blanche to crash the conversation, though.

[Riotsword]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

Owned.

[Funk]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

I didn't have many papers to write this semester, so I'll just post the last one that I wrote. It's nothing special and it's not very informative.

If rocket scientists use XML, why shouldn’t you?

NASA uses XML as the primary data driver for their Web site. In a well-written and informative document presented on its site, NASA explains why it uses XML and other technologies to populate its pages, and some of the problems that have occurred by using this method.

NASA used XML to become more organized. A few years ago, the organization realized that its Web page had become a jumbled mess and that it needed a better way of regrouping its data and presenting it. One data presentation dilemma was presenting updated news on the fly. By using RSS to read in its pre-formatted XML data, NASA was able to quickly implement updated data. NASA also liked the way it was able to separate data from presentation, making it easier to switch data in and out. XML eventually became the foundation for all data found on the entire site.

Fortunately for NASA, it did not have to completely scrap everything from the original Web site. Some of the HTML was salvageable and was integrated with the newly organized XML data. The actual XML data was organized into two primary DTDs: one for the news items, and one basically for the rest of the Web site. These DTD outline the data requirements for each of these types of documents. NASA uses some HTML tags as definitions for data in these DTDs, and has admitted that this can lead to syntax problems when the data must be parsed. The article shows examples of using HTML tags to contain data, including anchor tags and table tags.

Another major technology that works hand-in-hand with XML to present the NASA Web site is Java. NASA noticed that XML and Java have similar attributes: XML produces “portable data” while Java produces “portable code”. NASA utilized several robust APIs to bring Java and XML together. NASA noticed that this produced more secure server documents and that libraries that the APIs brought with them led to easy to implement features.

Despite all of the success that NASA had in combining all of these technologies, they did have a few obstacles to overcome. One major problem that NASA addresses is transforming XML using a WYSIWYG process. Its first attempt to translate XML was researching add-ons to Microsoft Word that would allow XML tagged data to be directly translated into a Word-like document, but this proved to be tedious and required massive customization of the Word application. NASA has evaluated other XML-transformation applications, as well, and notes that Arbortext and Adobe have promising products to offer in this area.

Source: http://exploration.nasa.gov/about/xmldriven_lite.html

[Alex]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!






*bows*

[Riotsword]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

[Funk]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

Excellent work, Smurtle.

[Perversion]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

It was for Film History II- Sound Film, and yes it was for my major. This was my final paper for the class and I got a C+ and I don't know why.

I used to own The Thin Blue Line, and have seen Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control and A Brief History of Time. I've wanted to see The Fog of War, and remember reading about Gates of Heaven many, many years ago, but never got around to watching it. I might even decide to put it in my Netflix queue.


So exactly HOW many violent movies and TV shows did you watch when you were a kid, Smurtle? Geez...let me guess...you love first-person shooters, too.

[Alex]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

Psch. I hate first person shooters. I was REALLY into Gremlins though.

[Shadow Rider]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

I got an 88% on this paper. ^_^

The Environmental Factors Affecting Criminal behaviour

Criminal behaviour and society interact on many different levels, affecting each other bidirectionally. As such, there are two ways to view criminal behaviour: as a top-down process, or as a bottom-up process. Criminal behaviour viewed as a top-down process, suggests that the environment and social structure mediates the criminal behaviour an individual expresses. Whereas criminal behaviour viewed as a bottom-up process places the onus on the individual as being solely responsible for their criminal behaviour. In reality though, neither view conveys an accurate representation of what is occurring, both criminal behaviour and the environment are interrelated and have a strong effect on each other.

The traditional viewpoint of society on criminal behaviour is reflected by early studies in criminology (Bell, 1912; Kellogg, 1914, 1915; Weidensall, 1913), which suggest a partial biological cause for criminal behaviour, as well as a partial psychosocial cause (e.g. lack of moral upbringing and education). This traditional viewpoint involves society as a whole making a fundamental attribution error (see Ross, 1977) in their views, regarding criminal behaviour as strictly a bottom-up process. Current trends in research are moving away from viewing criminal behaviour as flowing in one direction, favoring a bidirectional approach in the study of criminal behaviour. The following literature review will elucidate that crime cannot be viewed on only one dimension, and that both an individualistic (bottom-up perspective) and a societal perspective (top-down perspective) must be included when discussing causes of criminal behaviour. However, the evidence indicates that while both approaches to criminal behaviour are relevant, bottom-up processes have stronger effects on criminal behaviour than top-down processes.

To examine criminal behaviour from an individualistic and a societal perspective, several different environments must be examined: the physical environment, the home environment, and the neighbourhood environment and structure.

Physical Environment

It is not an uncommon belief that criminal behaviour is affected by the weather and seasonality; however while most research on this matter is still controversial, most research does suggest that the physical environment (temperature specifically) has an effect on criminal behaviour (United States Riot Commission, 1968). It is already known that seasonal changes can affect one’s mood, causing a seasonal depression in certain individuals (e.g. Seasonal Affective Disorder [SAD]; see DSM-IV, 1996). This suggestion that weather and seasonality have an affect on criminal behaviour would support a top-down process involved in criminal behaviour. Although there are significant effects on criminal behaviour caused by the physical environment the effect size is often smaller and less direct than other environments (e.g. parental influences). The physical environment’s effect on criminal behaviour is typically through a top-down process as it is largely unaffected by the individual, with the only control an individual has over their environment is in choosing where to live (e.g. moving to the Southern U.S. to avoid the cold winters of Canada).

Rotton and Cohn (2003) used previously collected statistical data to examine how temperature mediates crime, specifically the effects on aggression as well as aggression-related crime. A general trend indicates that there is an increase in aggression-related crime (e.g. rape or robberies) in years with higher annual temperatures. Rather than grouping criminal activity together, Rotton and Cohn examined several different types of crime to determine if there was a separate effect for different levels of seriousness in criminal behaviour. A trend was identified; as the seriousness of the crime went up (larceny-theft, burglary, robbery, rape, and lethal assault), the effect of an increase in temperature went down (i.e. negatively correlated); larceny-theft crimes increased 10.65 times per 100,000 population and lethal assault crimes did not increase significantly at all. An explanation for this trend is that different levels of crimes have different thresholds to set-off criminal behaviour (i.e. an individual needs to be pushed further to commit lethal assault, than to commit larceny-theft). The overall trend of increased crime within years with a higher mean annual temperature supports a theory that individuals are affected by the physical environment around them, through a top-down process. However, temperature does not account for all instances of increases in criminal behaviour.

Cohn, Rotton, Peterson, and Tarr (2004) conducted an experiment that examined Social Escape/Avoidance (SEA) model of criminal behaviour in relation to temperature, city size, and the southern subculture of honour or culture of honour. SEA suggests that population and city size mediate criminal behaviour. The research by Cohn et al. extends research performed by Rotton and Cohn (2003) on temperature effects in criminal behaviour, as well as examining temperature effects that Anderson and Anderson, and Land and colleagues could not account for. The results of the Cohn et al. study are consistent with those of Rotton and Cohn, indicating that temperature moderates the amount of certain types of crime; temperature was more likely to affect the occurrence of rape or assault than of homicide. However, there is a confounding variable present: the culture of honour. The culture of honor is recognized mediator of increased homicide rates (see introduction in Cohn et al.). Consistent with previous research, when the culture of honour was controlled for, it was more predictive of crime rates than temperature was. This lends several possible theories why individuals are more prone to violence in the southern U.S., differing from Cotton and Rohn’s previous study, one possible explanation is that individuals who are more prone to violence will seek out an environment (i.e. a hotter environment) which is conducive to their aggressive disposition.

While the two previous studies have examined in-depth the effects of temperature on criminal behaviour, seasonality was not examined specifically. Several studies have included seasonal effects on criminal behaviour (see Introduction Cohn et al., 2004) and the results are conflicting. A recent study that examined the seasonal differences in violent crime in the U.S. has found some promising results to support such a hypothesis. The results from Simister and Cooper’s (2005) study indicate that in the summer months, there is an increase in violent crime compared to the winter months. Simister and Cooper suggest that the heat causes stress hormones to be activated (specifically adrenaline) which results in higher aggressive behaviour, which is called thermal stress. This marked increase in violent crime during the summer months may partially explain why the Rotton and Cohn (2003) study showed little to no increase in violent crime over the course of the year; there may just not be enough “hot” days to cause thermal stress that would show a significant annual increase in violent crime. Another important point is that there was no absolute temperature correlated with an increase in violent crime, the temperature increase was based upon the adaptation level of the individual to temperature. This goes back to the explanation for the Cohn et al. study where individuals may choose to locate themselves in an area with weather patterns that elicit behaviour similar to their aggressive disposition.

The physical environment accounts for several trends in criminal behaviour in cities across the country, however it is inadequate to explain the variation in criminal behaviour on a smaller scale. To explain criminal behaviour through a bottom-up and top-down perspective, the next smallest organizational structure must be examined: the neighbourhood environment.

Neighbourhood Environment and Structure

Individuals spend a majority of their time in the neighbourhood that they live in, often shopping in close proximity, as well as using services and engaging in leisure activities close by. The neighbourhood environment has several obvious effects on an individual’s behaviour (e.g. avoiding walking around at night in a high crime area), and the same is true for criminal behaviour as well. The physical signs of disorder and the territoriality (i.e. defensible space) within a neighbourhood are correlated with several types of criminal behaviour (Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, Taylor, 1993). Where the physical environment accounted for criminal behaviour across a country or city, this doesn’t account for all of the variation within a specific city; neighbourhood structure accounts for part of the criminal behaviour within that neighbourhood. The neighbourhood structure is more balanced in its effect on criminal behaviour than the physical environment, with bottom-up (community policing) and top-down (physical signs of disorder) processes taking place.
Supporting both a bottom-up and a top-down perspective on criminal behaviour, Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) examined how the collective efficacy of a neighbourhood contributed to reducing criminal behaviour, specifically violence and victimization within that neighbourhood. The collective efficacy of the neighbourhood was defined as the amount of social cohesion amongst neighbours, as well as their willingness to help out one another. Collective efficacy was accounted for by three factors concentrated disadvantage (poverty), immigrant concentration, and residential stability. When concentrated disadvantage and immigrant concentration were lower, and residential stability was higher, the collective efficacy of a neighbourhood increased. Additionally the collective efficacy of the neighbourhood was then predictive of the level violence and victimization in that neighbourhood (i.e. the higher the collective efficacy the lower the rates of violence). These findings imply that the characteristics of the neighbourhood, mediated by the collective efficacy of the neighbourhood, play a major role in criminal behaviour. This extends earlier research conducted by Sampson and Groves (1989) that suggests high social-disorganization affects community victimization rates within a community, as well as .

Building off of the Sampson et al. (1997) study, Benson, Fox, DeMaris, and Van Wyk (2003) examined how intimate partner violence is mediated by neighbourhood disadvantage and individual economic stress. The findings of the study are consistent with previous research, suggesting that intimate partner violence (specifically violence against women) is accounted for by neighbourhood disadvantage (i.e. poorer neighbourhoods tend to have more partner violence). While levels of partner violence were higher in lower socioeconomic status neighbourhoods, the individual economic stress that males experienced (specifically high job instability) was correlated with higher levels of partner violence (causation between job instability and partner violence has not been established, and it may be confounded with other individual variables). This supports a bidirectional view of criminal behaviour, with both an individual and societal perspective accounting for a part of criminal behaviour.

While the signs of criminal behaviour may be present within a neighbourhood, this does not necessarily relate to how individuals perceive crime in their neighbourhood. Fear of crime is related to the likelihood that individuals will engage in actions which support the collective efficacy within their neighbourhood (see Gibson, Zhao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2002). Amerio and Roccato (2005) examined how fear of crime within one’s neighbourhood and concern about crime in one’s country (i.e. Italy in this study) are related. Fear of crime was determined to be less prevalent than concern about crime, and that both are related to each other. Direct and indirect victimization accounted for a large part of fear of crime amongst individuals, and should be taken into account when examining criminal behaviour. Because concern about crime was more common than fear of crime, an error is committed by these individuals: unwarranted optimism (see Weinstein, 1980, 1982). With high optimism and a low fear of crime, it is less likely that these individuals will engage in pro-social actions to support the collective efficacy within their neighbourhood. Due to effects fear of crime has on collective efficacy, this suggests a bottom-up approach to examining criminal behaviour within a neighbourhood. However, this also presents a top-down solution to changing the fear of crime individuals have through community policing efforts (see Xu, Fielder, & Flaming, 2005).

Extending the research on defensible space conducted by Perkins et al. (1993), Villarreal (2004) examined how the level of crime within a neighbourhood is related to the amount of available land, the security of land claims, and the presence of the state. The major results of the study indicate that all three factors are negatively correlated with violent crime in that area, indicating the importance of effective government and public policy to reduce crime within a neighbourhood. While Villarreal’s study was conducted in rural Mexico, the theories behind his study were based upon observations in the rural U.S. and are applicable to western society. Relating back to the Amerio and Roccato (2005) study, which looked at bottom-up processes of criminal behaviour, Villarreal’s provides a top-down perspective to how criminal behaviour can be reduced within North America, through means such as community policing. Going back to the Xu et al. (2005) study, community policing within high crime areas helps to reduce criminal behaviour, by establishing a community space, preventing gang territoriality, and having a community presence within the neighbourhood.

The effects of neighbourhood structure on crime are not confined to the likelihood of committing a crime, but also with the likelihood of being a victim of a crime. Dobrin, Lee, and Price (2005) examined the differences between homicide victims and non-victims to determine what neighbourhood characteristics and individual characteristics are involved in the likelihood of being a homicide victim. This study approaches homicide victimization from both a top-down and a bottom-up perspective, which is consistent with the literature discussed thus far. The results of the Dobrin et al. study indicate that variables from both perspectives produced significant differences between homicide victims and non-victims; however the effects of individual differences were stronger overall. These results are similar to those on the physical environment, which indicated that the physical environment mediates criminal behaviour, but does not account for the majority of criminal behaviour. This finding is partially accounted for by the confounding nature of the relationship between the physical environment and the neighbourhood environment (i.e. all neighbourhoods are located within a distinct physical environment).

While there are strong effects on criminal behaviour from the neighbourhood structure, through a bottom-up and top-down perspective, this still does not account for all the variation of criminal behaviour. As suggested by several studies in this section, the home environment plays a key role in explaining criminal behaviour. This is the smallest environment that has influence on individuals, and due to the personal nature of relationships in the home environment an individualistic (bottom-up) perspective is most relevant.

Home Environment and Parental Effects

During one’s formative years, the home environment has a large impact on every aspect of life. The parents of an individual affect them on many different levels, in both positive and negative ways. Children become socialized to the world through many different ways, and in a normal situation the parents are often prime contributors to this socialization process. When a child’s home environment is not ideal this can lead to several developmental issues, specifically lowered self-control which is theorized to result in an increased risk of committing criminal acts (see Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). The socialization that children receive is different between genders, which accounts for differences in self control and differences in crime rates (see Gender and Crime, Bennet, Farrington, and Huesmann, 2005). The parental effects in the home environment support a bottom-up perspective to criminal behaviour, with delinquency and criminal behaviour being largely accounted for through deficiencies in childhood socialization.

The socialization that one receives as a child from their parents affects the likelihood of being involved in criminal behaviour was examined in a study by Blackwell and Piquero (2005). In this study, power-control theory (see Hagan, Gillis, and Simpson 1985, 1990) and self control theory were used to explain the effect that parents have on criminal behaviour. The results of this study indicate that, consistent with previous research, there are differences between genders when it comes to the likelihood of being involved in crime, as well as a difference between different household types (i.e. less or more patriarchal). These findings support the theory that the criminal behaviour is partially in response to how children are socialized at a young age, making the home environment an important factor when looking at causes of criminal behaviour. This also supports a bottom-up approach to criminal behaviour, with parents having a direct and long-lasting effect on their children and their criminal activities.

The effects of parents are not limited to the socialization they impart on their children, a study by Unnever, Colvin, and Cullen (2004) examined how children can be coerced into criminal behaviour. The results of the study suggest that there is a strong relationship between a parent’s ability to coerce their children and their delinquent acts. Specifically children exposed to coercive environments developed serious social-psychological deficits due to the coercive environment. As well, the school and neighbourhood environments also had a mediating affect on delinquency; however to a lesser extent than the home environment. These findings are consistent with other literature on the environmental effects on criminal behaviour. Unnever et al. suggest that the strong parental effects on criminal behaviour are due to the highly personal nature of parental involvement, contrasted with the relatively impersonal involvement of the school and neighbourhood environment. This again supports a bottom-up effect for parental involvement in the home environment, with the parents directly affecting their children’s criminal behaviour.

The parental effects within the home environment account for a large part of criminal behaviour. The home environment affects children mostly through a bottom-up process, which has the strongest effects on criminal behaviour. The effects of the home environment are mediated by the effects of the physical environment and the neighbourhood environment, which do not affect criminal behaviour in bottom-up only manner.
Conclusions

The environmental effects on criminal behaviour are extensive, and they account for a majority of criminal behaviour. The three main categories of environment are the physical environment, the neighbourhood environment, and the home environment. These environments are interrelated, and they affect criminal behaviour in different ways. Several environmental factors that interact with criminal behaviour are temperature, physical disorder, and parental socialization, however these only a few of the factors identified in the literature. All three environments can examined through a bottom-up or top-down process, with the physical environment containing more top-down processes and the home environment containing more bottom-up processes. The bottom-up processes in general have stronger effects on criminal behaviour than the top-down processes, but only through using a bidirectional model with both types of processes can an accurate picture of criminal behaviour be portrayed.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Amerio, P. & Roccato, M. (2005). A predictive model for psychological reactions to crime in Italy: An analysis of fear of crime and concern about crime as a social problem. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, pp. 17-28.
Bell, J. (1912). The effects of the probation system. Journal of Education Psychology, 3, p. 409.
Bennett, S., Farrington, D., Huesmann, L. (2005). Explaining gender differences in crime and violence: The importance of social cognitive skills. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 10, pp. 263-288.
Bensons, M., Fox, G., DeMaris, A., & Van Wyk, J. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, pp. 207-235.
Blackwell, B. & Piquero, A. (2005). On the relationships between gender, power control, self-control, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, pp. 1-17.
Cohn, E., Rotton, J., Peterson, A., & Tarr, D. (2004). Temperature, city size, and the southern subculture of violence: Support for social escape/avoidance (SEA) theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, pp. 1652-1674.
Dobrin, A., Lee, D., Price, J., (2005) Neighborhood structure differences between homicide and non-homicide victims. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, pp. 137-143.
Gibson, C., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. & Gaffney, M. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime: An empirical assessment across three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19, pp. 537-564.
Gottfredson, D. & Hirschi. T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hagan, J., Gillis, A., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory. American Journal of Sociology, 90, pp. 1151– 1176.
Hagan, J., Gillis, A., & Simpson, J. (1990). Clarifying and extending power-control theory. American Journal of Sociology, 95, pp. 1024–1037.
Kellogg, A. (1914). Crime and sociology. Psychological Bulletin, 11, pp. 454-463.
Kellogg, A. (1915). Crime and sociology. Psychological Bulletin, 12, pp. 446-456.
Perkins, D., Wandersman, H., Rich, R., & Taylor, R. (1993). The physical environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality, and the incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, pp. 29-49.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortion in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press. (p. 72).
Rotton, J. & Cohn, E. (2003). Global warming and U.S. crime rates: An application of routine crime theory. Environment and Behaviour, 35, pp. 802-825.
Sampson, R. & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. The American Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 774-802.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, pp. 918-924.
Simister, J. & Cooper, C. (2005). Thermal stress in the U.S.A.: Effects on violence and on employee behaviour. Stress and Health, 21, pp. 3-15.
United States Riot Commission. (1968). Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Bantam: New York.
Unnever, J., Colvin, M., & Cullen, F. (2004). Crime and coercion: A test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, pp. 244-268.
Villarreal, A. (2004). The Social Ecology of rural violence: Land scarcity, the organization of agricultural production, and the presence of the state. The American Journal of Sociology, 110, pp. 313-348.
Weidensall, J. (1913). Criminology and delinquency. Psychological Bulletin, 10, pp. 229-237.
Weinstein, N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, pp. 806-820.
Weinstein, N. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 5, pp. 441-460.
Xu, Y., Fiedler, M., & Flaming, K. (2005). Discovering the impact of community policing: The broken windows thesis, collective efficacy, and citizen’s judgment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, pp. 147-186.

[josh]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

Think of it as something of a "Wikipedia for the Pavvy Soul."

why don't we have a Wiki?

[Ryner]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

This was my paper for our senior projects in high school, I got a 97 or something on it. We were supposed to interview an expert in the field of whatever we were writing about, but I just made up a fictional guy who had schizophrenia. It was way easier that way.

Schizophrenia

Imagine a quiet night at home, alone. It’s late and you have work tomorrow, so you decide it would be best to go to bed. As you get up to turn off the television, you hear a tiny voice laughing at you. Probably coming from the neighbors, you think to yourself, they’ve always been loud. On the way to your bedroom, you think about how today your co-worker Dennis had accidentally spilled ink over your recently finished report. Surely, you think to yourself, that was no accident. Sure, Dennis offered to print out a new copy, but that was a trick! Dennis must have done it on purpose to get you in trouble, or maybe even have you fired… that means your boss is in on it too! As you reach your bed, you promise yourself to start avoiding Dennis, and to watch out for anyone else who is in on this plan.
After a minute, you’re finally laying in bed. The room is dark and quiet, but then where is that voice coming from? The laughing voice from earlier is back, only it’s louder and suddenly much clearer. You can’t make out what the voice is saying, but it sounds like it’s coming from all around you. You cover your head with the pillow, only the sound isn’t muffled any, if anything it has become louder! It’s almost as if you’re imagining the voice, only you’re not… or are you? You’re suddenly not sure, but by now the voice has faded away. You pull the pillow off of your head and find the room is as dark and quiet as it should be. You close your eyes and start to relax. You forget about the voice for now, there are more important things to worry about: If you don’t think of a way to stop Dennis and your boss and everyone else that is against you, you’ll be fired by the end of the week!
In what I wrote above, the character suffers from auditory hallucinations (the laughter and voices) and paranoid delusions (the belief that his co-workers are trying to get him fired), two of the more common symptoms of schizophrenia. What do you think it would be like to have with live like our character everyday of you life? The character does not even (relatively) have it too bad, his case of schizophrenia is mild compared to how bad symptoms can become. Many times a life of schizophrenia is hard to handle, 10% of deaths in schizophrenics is cause by suicide. Schizophrenia is a crippling disease that can greatly alter a person’s life and endanger their safety.

The Cause, Symptoms and Diagnosis of Schizophrenia

The Cause

The exact cause of schizophrenia is not known, but there are (of course) numerous theories. Some of which include beliefs that the disease may be caused by problems that effect the brain during pregnancy, but by far the theory with the strongest supportive evidence (and the most followers) is that schizophrenia is somehow genetic and runs in families (exactly how is unknown).The genetic theory suggests that schizophrenia is inherited and carried from parents to children by one or more genes. This theory is also the oldest, and while it does not explain how two healthy parents with mentally healthy family histories can have a child with schizophrenia, the evidence in support of the genetic theory is hard to ignore. (Torrey)
The most supportive evidence to the genetic theory is that many times the disease will run in families. Some studies have shown that a sibling or child of someone with schizophrenia could have up to a ten percent chance of developing the disease. Compare that to the fact that any random person has about a one percent chance of developing schizophrenia. Even more evidence: in cases of identical twins, if one twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has a thirty percent chance of getting it as well. The evidence done on the genetic theory is the best chance that researchers currently have on finding an exact cause, and “although virtually all schizophrenia researchers accept the fact that genes play some role in the development of schizophrenia, there continues to be much debate about what that role may be” (Torrey 156). One strong question against the genetic theory asks why, if the disease is indeed genetic, has schizophrenia not died out since people with schizophrenia reproduce at very low rates. Finally, only about one-third of those that develop schizophrenia have had any family history of it, which brings up more doubts about the genetic theory.

Symptoms
While it is still unclear what the exact causes of schizophrenia are, it is surely much easier to notice the symptoms, right? Many people will believe that as soon as someone hears voices they are schizophrenic, but that is not necessarily true. There is not one symptom that is essential to diagnose schizophrenia in a patient, and there are no symptoms that occur in schizophrenia and schizophrenia alone. However, there are several symptoms that occur only in schizophrenia and only very rarely in other diseases.
Delusions and hallucinations are the most well known symptoms, they are also among the most common. Delusions are false beliefs that a person (and only that person) believes, despite any contradictory evidence. For example, a person suffering from delusions might believe that there is a plot against you by stars of a television show, despite the fact that there is no reason to believe the starts even know the person. Another delusion is the belief that the person has a special power or ability no one else has. These delusions can be very dangerous if the one suffering takes action, such as attacking those he thinks are against them, or testing out their special powers. (personalmd.com)
Hallucinations are the perception of visual or auditory experiences without any external stimulation. Usually startlingly realistic, hallucinations seemed to be caused by over-acuteness of the senses, which the brain is unable to interpret and respond appropriately to stimulation. Visual hallucinations include seeing something that no one else can see, such as a person who isn’t there or seeing an object grow when it actually isn’t happening. “Auditory hallucinations are by far the most common form of hallucinations in schizophrenia” (Torrey 59). These hallucinations can include hearing anything from a bang or scratch, to a screams, speeches, and music. Many times the person having the hallucinations will believe the noises come from God or a deceased loved one, leading them to believe they are not sick, but rather blessed.
There are many other symptoms of schizophrenia, including:
· Difficulties with speech.
· Problems processing information, which leads to problems focusing or paying attention. Also, an inability to complete goals.
· Lack of emotions, such as showing little facial expression.
· Inability to take joy in things, even things the person once enjoyed very much (this is very common in schizophrenics).
· Changes in sleeping patterns.
· Changes in personal behavior, such as no longer showering.


Diagnosis
With all the information we have on schizophrenia, it is still rather difficult to diagnose. When fully developed, it is relatively easy to find schizophrenia in a patient, but in the early stages, it is much more difficult. Adding to the difficulty of early diagnosis is the theory that schizophrenia may in fact be made up of multiple diseases, which would make it much harder to spot specifically.
Schizophrenia is accurately diagnosed when:
· A person has at least two of the following symptoms in the active phase of the disorder, each having lasted for at least 1 month:
o Hallucinations
o Delusions
o Disorganized speech
o Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
o Negative symptoms (no emotion, inability to experience pleasure, problems concentrating)
· A person has problems functioning on the job or with other people.
· Continuous signs of schizophrenia have been present for at least 6 months, with active phase symptoms being present for at least 1 month.
· Substance abuse or other mental health problems have been ruled out. (web-md.com)
Perhaps the most important step is to rule out other illnesses before finally diagnosing schizophrenia. A medical history must be taken followed by multiple psychological and physical tests. Finally, because commonly abused drugs can produce the same symptoms of schizophrenia, drugs tests must also be performed before a patient is finally diagnosed with the illness. (web-md.com)
Schizophrenia’s History
The origins of schizophrenia are not exactly known. Whether it has always existed, or has “recently” developed in the human mind is often debated by researchers. “There is definite evidence in support of the view that schizophrenia is an ancient illness” (Torrey 18). Some scholars point to Biblical figures that acted oddly (Ezekiel was said to have hallucinations) and others argue that those in ancient times that had mental illnesses were often believed to be divinely inspired, making them revered instead of being defined as sick. Or, on the opposite side of that argument, that those that acted strangely due to mental illness were believed to be under possession of a demon or the devil. “In 15th century Europe hallucinations and delusions were seen as evidence that an individual was possessed. Many women suffering from these symptoms were thought to be witches and burnt at the stake”(elemental-health.com). Of course, records from older time periods are far from perfect, and the use of the Bible as a point of reference in a scientific argument is debatable. (Torrey)
A much better argument can be made about the opinion that schizophrenia has only (relatively) recently become noticed (whether this is because it hasn’t been around or just hasn’t been recognized is unknown). The Middle Ages appears to be when the first signs of schizophrenia occasionally appeared. “A few small psychiatric hospitals were opened such as Bethlem Hospital in London” (Torrey 19). Treatment during these times was downright cruel, and usually was little more than chaining and whipping those that showed signs of mental illness. In the 17th century, it was commonly believed by psychiatrists that the way to cure someone with a mental illness was to shock them. “Early shock methods included pinning patients down a pouring cold water on their faces until they were nearly drowned, or strapping patients to chairs so that they lost sensation and became calm” (elemental-health.com). Although one could say that a positive point is that the theories of demonic possession were abandoned for actual medical thinking. (Shorter)

Schizophrenia Treatments of Today: Hospitalization, Medication, and Side Effects
One thing should be made clear right away: schizophrenia is not a curable disease, it is only controllable. Schizophrenia cannot be cured until the causes of the disease are understood, so an eminent cure may be a long ways off. The best thing that can be done for now, is simply to control the disease to prevent it from taking over a person’s life. This is done through multiple means.
Hospitalization
In cases in which a person has severe schizophrenia, hospitalization is almost a necessity. Hospitalization has several positive effects, namely allowing researchers to observe the patient in a controlled setting and to permit laboratory tests that can rule out other mental illnesses. In many instances, hospitalization is needed to protect patients who might be dangerous from harming themselves or others. This brings up the subject of voluntary hospitalization and involuntary. Anyone other the age of 18 can apply to be admitted into and institution, but involuntary hospitalization is much harder to achieve. Only when a patient is: either so ill that they don’t realize that they need help; or are dangerous to themselves or others, can they be involuntarily committed. (Torrey)
Medication: Antipsychotics
For the most effective treatment, many schizophrenics take combinations of multiple drugs. “The main drugs used to treat schizophrenia are usually called antipsychotics” (Torrey 190). First discovered in 1952 in France, antipsychotics are usually given as tablets or liquid. There are more than 30 different antipsychotics available in North America. Studies show that 70 % of schizophrenics that take antipsychotics clearly improve. However, 25 % improve very little or none at all, and 5% of people will actually get worse from the medication. A surprising fact about anitpsychotics is that it is not exactly clear how they work. (Torrey)
Side Effects of Antipsychotics
It is because of the side effects of antipsychotics that many people have such an untrusting nature towards them. Some of the more common side effects are:
· Sedation: This is rather common, and is the reduction of stress, excitement, and other sensations.
· Dry mouth and blurred vision
· Stiffness and tremors
· Weight gain
· Impaired sexual function (mainly decreased sexual desires): Fairly common, but their seriousness and actually rarity is debated.
· Seizure: Very rare and usually only occur when antipsychotics are mixed with other drugs, and even then seizures are still rare.
Family Issues of Schizophrenia
Unfortunately, common feelings families have involving schizophrenia are blame and shame. Many times the parents blame themselves for their children’s conditions, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that schizophrenia is caused by how a person is treated during childhood. Shame is probably much worse, when families are ashamed of their sick relatives, they hurt themselves and the one with the illness. In some cases, families will try to hide the fact that they are related to someone with schizophrenia. Shame can lead to feelings such as hatred and anger between the person with schizophrenia and their families. Families must understand that there is no reason to blame themselves for their schizophrenic relatives, and they must try to avoid the feelings of shame, which in the end cannot help at all. (Torrey)
My Interview
When I spoke to my interviewee, Chris Raines, I was given a vicarious experience of schizophrenia. Chris had had schizophrenia since he was around 19 (for about 20 years now) and has been on medication for 19 years. He gave me a first-hand explanation of the effects the disease has on him at first, from the fear he experienced when he first developed symptoms, to the relief he felt when, on his 20th birthday and on medication, he had gone a whole month with barely any schizophrenic instances. I learned a lot from my talk with Chris, and after speaking with him I have a newfound respect for those that must live with schizophrenia.
Closing
Schizophrenia is an illness surrounded by mysteries, but what we do know is vital to helping those that suffer from this illness. Perhaps one day, we will be able to understand schizophrenia completely and make it as treatable as possible. For now, however, there are those that (unfortunately) must leave with this disease. Even with all we’ve learned, we still know very little. Schizophrenia is a crippling disease that can greatly alter a person’s life and endanger their safety.

[Zieg Rauros]

Re: Post a Paper, Educate a Pavilionite!

Heres an opinion paper:

Love - 'an intense emotional attachment' as stated by dictionary.com. Also, 'love is overused in today's world, people say they love someone because of the way they look or their body' as from urbandictionary.com. The story Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare was a romantic and tragic story of a pair of children who, even through the rivalry of their parents, fell deeply and madly in love. Or so the story says. I believe that this short lived love affair was not love, but the hormones of two young teenagers taking over and guiding their actions. They knew each other for a few very short days, including the time when Romeo was not even allowed in the city. They fell in 'love' at a party, at first glance, without knowing anything of the other, not even their names.
First, look at their 'love at first sight'. It is purely based on attraction, teenage emotions taking hold of the situation and causing false love, as is common, especially in society today. My point lies in the definition of attraction: The act or capability of attracting. The 'lovers' found each others looks appealing, and hormones took over from there. Teenage emotions are indecisive and quick to change. The character Friar Lawrence saw this, and commented, saying “Young men's love then lies Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes”, but he continues with marrying them because he thinks it will help join the families, not because he trusts their love. He also states later “Wisely and slow. They stumble than run fast” hinting that by going so fast in his 'love' for Juliet, Romeo may be making a mistake. I highly agree with the Friar about this, but disagree in the fact that it is not a good way at all to unite their families.
Secondly, Romeo was, at first, in love with the maid Rosaline and speaks so desperately for her in the beginning, and who everyone speaks of as beautiful. Not only does he show his love for her, but his friends talk about him being so long in love with her, and give him a hard time about it. His sudden shift to Juliet is quite improbably, most likely impossible. Peoples emotions do not normally shift like that so quickly. If he was truly in love with her he would have had to have spent many months around her, which also makes us question his love for Rosaline.
This is the truth of the so called 'love'. This tragedy lies not in their love, but their death. There was no love to begin with, only the changing minds of two teens, unsure and pressured. A few days is far too short to call anything love with absolute certainty.