Ambrosia Gibboney Essays - Behavior, Psychology, Ethics, Psychopathy

Ambrosia Gibboney Essays - Behavior, Psychology, Ethics, Psychopathy Ambrosia Gibboney Mrs.B English 101 11/18/16 Type of sociopaths When someone hears, or says the word sociopath people automatically assume that they are all the same and that they are all very bad people. That is a common misconception. In fact, a lot of sociopaths are CEO's of big companies because of their aggressive, charismatic, attitude. There are a few characteristics that all sociopaths have in common. They are superficially charming and charismatic people. Sociopaths, depending on how sever their condition is tend to have little to no remorse. This simply means that they have no problem with using people for their own selfish gains. Most sociopaths are very intelligent. They are very skilled liars and don't have a real sense of right or wrong. A physical trait is that they usually tend to have very bright eyes and are able to keep eye contact for long periods of time. Don't assume that every one that stares at you is a sociopath although a couple of them just might be. Now that I told you some of their common characteristics I will b e explains 3 types of sociopaths. There is a common sociopath, disempathetic sociopath and a hostile sociopath. The common sociopath doesn't lean toward one trait this person tends to have a mix of all the traits. They make up the majority of the sociopaths. They usually don't hold a job very well and are frequently traveling from place to place. Common sociopaths aren't very dangerous but they should not be provoked. When making decisions, they don't use their conscious because they don't care how the outcome of their decision effects other people. Not all of the common sociopaths are like this some can hold jobs. The ones that can hold jobs might only have slight sociopathic tendencies and can live normal lives. Disempathic sociopath is the next type of sociopath I will be talking about. These people tend to live normal lives and blend into society very easily. They are capably of having feelings for a very select group of people. Those people are family and very close friends. They are very charming and tend to have multiple partners. It is very rare for them to find someone outside of their close circle that they can truly connect with. The people outside of the circle are seen as objects with little to no value. This type of sociopath can be very dangerous if something someone says or does angers them. They are risk takers and are abnormally calm in scary situations. You could ask them do walk down a dark alley by themselves and they would because they don't get the concept of fear. Lastly this one is the most dangerous sociopaths. The name of the type of this sociopath is called a hostile sociopath. A hostile sociopath can't control their anger very well. They have a hard time holding jobs and usually don't have friends. When angered by someone they will stop at nothing to hurt them. Hostile sociopaths are master manipulators. They also see people as objects and will pretend to like a person just to get what they want out of them. Once they have gotten what they wanted they will toss that person away and move on to the next. This is how most of their relationships with people end up. This type of sociopath should be avoided at all cost; it might just save your life. These sociopaths are very good at blending in with society. The reason why is because they look normal. They are everywhere and they do normal things like me and you. They go to schools, live in homes, buy food, have families. There is a good chance one is your boss. Sociopaths tend to excel in positions of power and are very intelligent. It takes a long time to spot the difference because who's to say what normal really is, but If you look close enough you might be able to spot one.

A Critical Look at Death of a Salesman

A Critical Look at 'Death of a Salesman' Have you ever loved a rock band that had lots of great songs you cherished? But then the band’s hit single, the one everyone knows by heart, the one that gets all the airtime on the radio, isn’t a song you particularly admire? That’s the way I feel about Arthur Millers   Death of a Salesman. It’s his most famous play, yet I think it pales in comparison to many of his less popular dramas. Although it’s by no means a bad play, it certainly is overrated. Wheres the Suspense? Well, you have to admit, the title does give everything away. The other day, while I was reading Arthur Miller’s esteemed tragedy, my nine-year-old daughter asked me, â€Å"What are you reading?† I replied, Death of a Salesman, and then at her request I read a few pages to her. She stopped me and announced, â€Å"Daddy, this is the world’s most boring mystery.† I got a good chuckle out of that. Of course, it’s a drama, not a mystery. However, the  suspense is a vital component of tragedy. Sure, when we watch a tragedy, we fully anticipate death, destruction, and sadness by the play’s end. But how will the death occur? What will bring about the destruction of the protagonist? When I watched Macbeth for the first time, I guessed that it would conclude with Macbeth’s demise. But I had no idea as to what would be his undoing. After all, he and Lady Macbeth thought they’d never be â€Å"vanquished until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him.†Ã‚   How the heck is a forest going to turn against them?! Therein lies the suspense because, sure enough, the forest comes marching right up to their castle! The main character in  Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman, is an open book. We learn very early on in the play that his professional life is a failure. He’s the low-man on the totem pole, hence his last name, â€Å"Loman.† (Very clever, Mr. Miller!) Within the first fifteen minutes of the play, the audience learns that Willy is no longer capable of being a traveling salesman. We also learn that he is suicidal. Spoiler! Willy Loman kills himself at the end of the play. But well before the conclusion, it becomes clear that the protagonist is bent upon self-destruction. His decision to kill himself for the $20,000 insurance money comes as no surprise; the event is blatantly foreshadowed throughout much of the dialogue. The Loman Brothers I have a hard time believing in Willy Loman’s two sons. Happy: He is the perennially ignored son. He has a steady job and keeps promising his parents that he’s going to settle down and get married. But in reality, he’s never going far in business and plans to sleep around with as many floozies as possible. Biff: He’s more likable than Happy. He has been toiling on farms and ranches, working with his hands. Whenever he returns home for a visit, he and his father argue. Willy Loman wants him to make it big somehow. Yet, Biff can’t hold down a 9-to-5 job to save his life. Both brothers are in their mid-thirties. Yet, they act as though they are still boys. The play is set in the productive years following World War II. Did the athletic Lowman brothers fight in the war? It doesn’t seem like it. If they had, perhaps they would be completely different people. They don’t seem to have experienced much during the seventeen years since their high school days. Biff has been moping. Happy has been philandering. Well-developed characters possess more complexity. By leaps and bounds, the father is the best part of Arthur Miller’s play. Unlike many of the show’s flat characters, Willy Loman has depth. His past is a complicated tangle of regrets and undying hopes. Great actors such as Lee J. Cobb and Brian Dennehy have mesmerized audiences with their portrayals of this iconic salesman. Yes, the role is filled with powerful moments. But is Willy Loman truly a tragic figure? Willy Loman: Tragic Hero? Traditionally, tragic characters (such as Oedipus or Hamlet) were noble and heroic. They possessed a tragic flaw, usually a bad case of hubris. (Note: Hubris means excessive pride. Use the word hubris at cocktail parties and people will think you’re ever-so-smart! But dont let it go to your head!). In contrast, Willy Loman represents the common man. Arthur Miller felt that tragedy could be found in the life of ordinary people. While I certainly agree, I also believe that tragedy works best when the main character’s choices become whittled away, much like a masterful yet imperfect chess player who suddenly realizes he is out of moves. Willy Loman has options. He has a lot of opportunities. Arthur Miller seems to be criticizing the American Dream, claiming that Corporate America drains the life out of people and casts them away when they are no further use. Yet, Willy Loman’s successful neighbor continually offers him a job! Willy Loman declines the job without ever explaining why. He has a chance to pursue a new life, but he wont let himself give up his old, soured dreams. Instead of taking the decent paying job, he chooses suicide. At the play’s end, his loyal wife sits at his grave. She does not understand why Willy took his own life. Arthur Miller would claim that the dysfunctional values of American society killed him. However, I believe that Willy Loman suffered from senility. He exhibits many of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. Why couldn’t his sons and his ever-attentive wife recognize his failing mental condition? It’s a mystery to me.

Society and its Attraction to Jury Trial Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Society and its Attraction to Jury Trial - Essay Example Furthermore, the individual jurors, chosen randomly, often face a lot of pressure in the form of intricate and lengthy case proceedings, which are unjustified and often lead to negative impact on the case outcome. There have been issues as regards the jury expertise on objectivity of decisions taken, as some experts argued that jury trials tend to be more emotional or sentimental (hence biased) in nature, rather than being logical, thus, attracting more than the due share of media and society attention.2 In fact, Penny Darbyshire describes the jury system as â€Å"an anti-democratic, irrational, and haphazard legislator, whose erratic and secret decisions run counter to the rule of law.†3 Such problems as pointed by the critics are inherent within the UK jury trial system, leading to demands for bringing in radical reforms in the UK legal policies and for abolishment of this many centuries old celebrated institution of criminal justice. The role of the juries within the legal system translates to the simple fact that legally unqualified people (the layman) are given significance within the highly specialised profession of law, and their assistance taken to provide justice to the public. The chief function of the jury is to listen to the facts presented during the case proceedings and based on these facts produce a verdict (in terms of case resolution within criminal/ civil cases), of guilty or not guilty. This essay will examine the role of the jury and explore the advantages and disadvantages of the system to seek whether Roskill had rightfully claimed that jury trials do not deliver justice, as they are more sentimental and emotionally driven, instead of being logical in nature, and tend to attract more media and society attraction than necessary. Discussion The jury system in UK Jury system in UK has been in vogue for more than 1,000 years, and according to some reports even existed before the Norman Conquest.4 The jury system, thus, always played a s ignificant part in balancing the British legal system. In the present legal scenario, jury independence is given a great deal of importance, where many feel that juries should not be meddled with or pressurised, while deciding a case. The position of the juries as the only arbiters in a case was evident in the famous Bulshell case of 1670, 5 and in the more recent R v Mc Kenna (1960).6 In both the cases, the independent roles of juries were highlighted, where they had acted separately from the judge, while taking a decision. While selecting a jury, an official at the Crown Court selects jurors randomly, from the official data system, and even though only a 12-member jury is needed for a case hearing, more members are generally selected, to provide for any absentee jury members.7 In England and Wales there are three forms of criminal offences, where ‘summary’ offences (ones considered as being of minimal seriousness) can be tried only at the Magistrates’ Court, wi th two to three magistrates in presence.8 Criminal offences that are more serious in nature and categorised as ‘