Banana Peel as an alternative for a shoe polish Essay

I. Rationale Banana is a staple starch for many tropical populations.Depending upon cultivar and ripeness, the flesh can vary in taste from starchy to sweet, and texture from firm to mushy. Bananas are an excellent source of vitamin B6 and contain moderate amounts of vitamin C, manganese and dietary fiber. There many uses of the â€Å"banana†; banana sap from the pseudostem, peelings or flesh may be sufficiently sticky for adhesive uses, the large leaves may be used as umbrellas and many more. One of these is the banana peel.We eat banana almost everyday. There are 100 bananas consumed in the UK alone, how much more would it be including the rest of the world? Aside from us being satisfied from it, instead of throwing the peel after we eat or putting it aside why not use them. By doing this we can help in lessening the chemical use in the society, to maintain a greener environment and to save money by using alternatives. Instead of banana peel,is there another alternative for a shoe polisher? An alcohol. Alcohol is more effective than the banana peel because it can really clean any item while the banana peel might stain the shoe. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The study aspired primarily, to search for alternative ways of a shoe polisher. Lastly, to make a simple preparation and pocket friendly. 1.How do you use the banana peel? 2. Will the banana leave an odor on the shoe once it has been rubbed? 3. Does alcohol have dangerous chemicals that can destroy the shoe? SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Our goal for our project is to share useful informations on how to save money and to be resourceful.This finding will not only benefit the people but also for our Mother Earth. III. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES The review of the study focuses on the banana peel and the alcohol, on wich works best.Why the banana peel is one of the alternatives for a shoe polisher,what’s in it’s skin that makes it an alternative for a shoe polish. http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Banana-Peels,Banana peels are as useful as banana. The contain antifungal,antibiotic and enzymatic properties that can be put to good use. Plus they’re moist and nutritious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_peel,Banana peels are also used for water purification, to produce ethanol, cellulase, laccase and in composting. Definition of Terms: Antifungal- destroying fungal and their growth. Antibiotic- a medicine that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms. Enzymatic- of relating to, or produced by an enzyme. Moist- slightly wet. Nutritious- nourishing Purification- is when things are cleaned and made pure. Ethanol- an intoxicating liquor containing this liquid. Cellulase- an enzyme that converts cellulose into glucose or a disaccharide. Laccase- are copper-containing oxides enzymes that are found in many plants,fungi and microorganisms. IV. Materials †¢Banana peel †¢Alcohol †¢soft cloth or brush V. Procedure First, peel a banana and separate the peel into three pieces. Preferably, wait until you want to eat a banana rather than peeling one just for your shoes. Second, rub your leather shoes with the inside of the banana peel. Use the same circular motions that you would use with regular shoe polish.Don’t worry if it gets a little messy. Lastly, Buff the shoe with a soft cloth. An old T-shirt or dust cloth will work well. This will remove  any banana that may have been left behind on the shoe. (do this with the alcohol) VI. Time Table Date: Time: What to do/task: 1/29/15 Assign on who will bring the assigned materials. 2/1/15 Start the project. VII. Budget We won’t be buying anything because the materials can be found in the house. VII. Proponents Clarita Isabel Baran Donessa Kasandra Rule Villafranca Khazel Mae Yntig Maila Angela Ybiernas

12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay

After the jurors go to the meeting room to discuss and arrive at consensus whether the young boy is guilty or not, we get to see different personalities combined to form a group to resolve the issue. Initially 11 out of 12 jurors voted in favour of boy being guilty. Therefore, first prominent thing I noticed was that there was lack of conviction about the criticality of the issue. People had already formed their judgement before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the conclusion that the boy was guilty. In the beginning, 11 out of 12 jurors were not sensitive about the seriousness of the decision they were going to make and the impact it was going to have on the young boy’s life. They were not ready to waste any time over discussing that issue because they had already perceived the young boy guilty based on his background and crimes he committed before as well as the jurorsâ₠¬â„¢ previous experiences in life. See more:  Manifest Destiny essay When the protagonist in the movie showed opposition to agree the boy’s guilt, then the rest of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and thoughtfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their objective as jurors. It was also evident that being a minority does not mean you have to go majority’s way under the influence or pressure of majority against your wish. After listening to the protagonist, juror started changing their original guilty decision one by one. This showed their willingness to change their stance having been convinced by the protagonist’s logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the situation and logic in order to bring the possible flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the possibility of authenticity of the testimony. In doing so, he influenced the members of the group that there are lacunae in the testimonies, and the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the boy when it is a matter of his life and death. The various people in the group started applying their mind and making sense of the possible flaws in the testimonies. Many started to pitch in their ideas and the protagonist was listening to them all and using them to strengthen his hypothesis of uncertainty about boy being guilty. Now they started utilizing the resources in the group to make the most informed decision. The group dynamics was at work the best. They were supplementing each other’s logic by their own logic in order to make a conclusion of the veracity of the evidence and its testimony. There were a couple of aggressive people in the group. When one of them lashed out at the old man in the group, another person intervened and warned him not to repeat insulting behaviour. Thus, along the way the group stated forming norms about the behaviour in the group. Also, when one man changed his judgement just for the sake of it in order to come to consensus sooner than later, then another person made it a point to him by saying that he needed to present his logic for changing his decision and he did not want to accept his ‘yes’ or ‘no’ just for the sake of it. Some people engaged themselves in social loafing without regard to the seriousness of the objective; they were reminded of the objective by others. Last person — son left so he was seeing his son in the young boy. 12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay Introduction: This movie analysis will focus on the movie 12 Angry Men. There will be comparisons between the movie and the different negotiation tactics used in the movie and even in class. There were lessons learned from this movie and it gave new ways of thinking. This movie does a great job of using negotiation to win over a case when you are the odd man out. Summary: This movie focuses on a jury deliberating a first-degree murder charge on an eighteen year old boy. The boy is accused of stabbing his father to death. If found guilty of the charges, the eighteen year old boy will face the death sentence. There are many reasons as to why the boy looks guilty. He has a weak alibi, he claims to have lost the knife he bought, which was the same knife found at the murder scene, and there are witness’s saying they either saw the killing or saw the boy leaving the apartment. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven of them think the boy is guilty, except one. This is juror number eight. He claims he just does not know if the boy is guilty or not guilty, and wants to talk. The entire juror’s quickly begin naming all the reasons why the boy is guilty. For each reason, juror number eight questions each reasoning the other jurors bring up. He states a lot in the movie â€Å"is it possible?† This question starts to put doubt in the other juror’s minds about the boys’ guilt. Also with the ongoing deliberation, the jurors are starting to learn more about themselves and their personalities and this is causing them to vote â€Å"not guiltyâ€Å". Some realize they are prejudice or are holding grudges, or they are simply voting guilty because of their backgrounds. With each reason and deliberation, juror number eight continues to attempt to convince the other jurors that voting â€Å"not guilty† may not actually be correct. Juror eight is hesitant about sending a boy to die without talking about it first. He does think that from the trial the boy is guilty, but he’s just not too sure about it. He remains calm throughout the whole deliberation. The only time he shows signs of anger is when two other jury members start playing tic-tac-toe. This bothers him because everyone should be paying attention to what is going on and not playing games. He questions every incident with â€Å"Is it possible?† The best negotiators spend time asking questions, staying curious, and uncovering the other side’s views of the situation, facts, interests, and priorities. Throughout the deliberation, he uncovers information never presented at the trial, and helps the other jurors to think that it just may not be possible the boy could be guilty. Characters & Personalities: Each character in the movie has a different personality about them which influences their decision on the verdict and they each express their own opinions based on their characteristics. Each juror plays a part in the movie where their personalities reflect back on a certain argument in the case. Juror one (Martin Balsam) is also known as the foreman of the group. He is put in charge to run the deliberation between all of the jurors. He likes that he has authority to run the group, but isn’t very assertive in doing so. Juror two (John Fiedler) is quiet and goes along with what everyone else says. He changes his vote early, though, to not guilty. He mentions about the height difference between the father and the boy, and how the boy would go about stabbing him. Juror three (Lee J. Cobb) is the angry member of the group. He is convinced the boy is guilty no matter what anyone says. He sees no point in discussing the boy’s innocence. There comes a time in the movie where he discusses that when his son was fifteen, he got in a fight with him and his son hit him. He hasn’t seen his son ever since. Juror three is angry with his son for his actions and for leaving, that he is taking out this anger on the boy in trial. Juror four (E.G. Marshall) is very convinced that the boy is guilty. He shows no sign of emotion and is able to recall much of what happened throughout the trial. He gets nervous though, as he cannot recall a certain movie he saw the other night, just as the boy could not do the same. Juror five (Jack Klugman) is a shy man. He lived in a slum all his life and can almost relate to the boy on trial, for he lives in a slum as well. He is an expert at using a switch knife, which comes in handy during the deliberation. Juror six (Edward Binns) is quite during the deliberation. He questions the boys’ motive for wanting to kill his father. Juror seven (Jack Warden) wants the deliberation to be over as quick as possible because he has tickets to a baseball game later that evening. He votes not guilty and does not wish to discuss why or why not. Juror eight (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty from the start of their meeting. He doesn’t know for sure if the boy is not guilty; he just wants to talk about it. He manages to cast reasonable doubt with the jurors on the boy’s innocence based on many aspects of the trial. He remains clam and patient throughout the deliberation. Juror nine (Joseph Sweeney) is an old man. He is the second person to vote not guilty, for he wants to hear more about the case. He is very observant, as he notices something about one of the witness’s during the trial. Juror ten (Ed Begley) is also an angry man. He is racist, and also very prejudice against people who come from a slum, which is why he believes the boy is guilty. Juror eleven (George Voskovec) takes the trial seriously. He stands up for what he believes in. He questions the boy’s actions a lot; such as if he really would have returned the his house three hours after the murder happened. Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is a smart man. He works for an advertising agency and has a hard time explaining his choice for changing his vote to not guilty. During the deliberation, certain parts of the character’s personalities play a part for different concepts. One example is with Juror five. During the trial, the boy was convicted of murdering is father using a switch knife as the weapon and stabbing his father down in the chest. Juror two makes a point on the height difference between the boy and his father, and how the boy would proceed to kill his father, meaning how he would have stabbed him. Juror five explains that he used to play with switch knives when he was around the boy’s age, and knows how to use one. During the trial, it was stated that the boy was an expert at using a switch knife. Juror five goes to demonstrate exactly how the boy would have pulled out the knife and stabbed his father: from underneath. He said it would take too much time to switch hands and stab down in his chest. Without Juror five having the knowledge and his personal characteristic of using a switch knife, the jury would have never learned how an experienced knife handler would have used the weapon. Tactics: In this section we will talk about a few of the tactics that we got the actors/characters using during the film. A few of this tactics were talked about during our class and case studies but some of the tactics were commonly used in everyday negotiations by everyone. We talked about power and how you could use power to get your way; you could use facts against the other party because facts are something you cannot ignore and emotions. Emotions are a hard tactic to master because you need to set aside your emotions so you can make a fair and honest judgment or answer. Power: Juror eight shows power over the other jurors. He has information the other jurors do not know about, and he is able to negotiate with them more. Information power is derived from the negotiator’s ability to assemble and organize facts and data to support his or her position, arguments, or desired outcomes. The other jurors only listened to what was presented in the trial. But Juror eight actually thought about the facts presented, and went out to look for more information. One way he did this was with the knife. The boy had bought the same knife used to kill his father the same night the murder happened. The boy claimed he had lost the knife, as it had fell through his pocket on his way to the movies. The owner of the shop where he had bought the knife claimed it was very unique, and he had never seen any other kind like it in his store. Juror eight asks to see the knife found at the crime scene. Everyone else is convinced this is the same knife the boy had bought, until Juror eight surprises them and pulls out the exact same knife. He says that he went out walking the previous night in the boy’s neighborhood and came across a shop just two blocks away from the boy’s house. He saw the same knife and bought it at a cheap cost. He proved to the other jurors that it is possible the boy could have dropped his knife, because that knife isn’t as unique as the thought. Another part where Juror eight has power is when they are debating about whether or not the old man heard the boy scream â€Å"I’m going to kill you!† According to the testimony, the boy had yelled those words right as the L-Train was passing by the window. Is it possible the old man heard the boy scream that? Juror eight stated that he had lived in an apartment next to the L tracks before and the sound of a train passing by is unbearable. Another juror said he had just finished painting one of the apartments and agreed that the sound is very loud. Juror eight had power over the others for he himself knew that the sound was very loud and it may not be possible the old man heard the boy say these things. Presentation of Facts: The way the facts were presented during the movie were all facts the jurors figured out themselves while deliberating, and not during the trial. There were many unanswered questions during the trial which caused Juror eight to question whether the boy was guilty or not. The defense attorney left out a lot of important information that was uncovered during the jury’s deliberation. One of these facts dealt with the old man who claimed he saw the boy running down the stairs from his apartment. The more the jury talked about the old man and what he said, the more Juror eight questioned if he had really seen the boy or not. One of the jurors pointed out that the man was dragging his left foot behind him, but trying to cover it up because he was ashamed. During the trial, the old man stated he heard a body hit the floor, and someone starting to run. He then said it took him no more than 15 seconds after he heard the body hit the floor to run out of his apartment and to the stairs to witness the boy running down them. Juror 8 thought then if it really could have taken him 15 seconds if he was dragging his left leg. This is when the jurors played out the scene to figure it out themselves. They were able to get a diagram of the apartment and measure out the dimensions of the room they were in. Juror eight walked the length of the room and back, while Juror two timed him. As he approached the end, Juror 2 said it took 41 seconds to walk the length they had measured out. By playing out the scene of the old man, this proved the fact it could not have taken the man 15 seconds, and he could not have seen the boy running down the stairs. Another important fact happened during the very end of the deliberation. At this point, everyone but two people believed the boy was innocent. Juror four says his reasoning for believing the boy is guilty is because of the woman across the street who claims she saw the murder herself. As he is talking, he takes his glasses off and begins rubbing the outside part of his nose where his glasses lay. Juror nine notices this, and asks him why he rubs his nose like that. Juror four says it is from his glasses, that they bother his nose, so he rubs him. Juror nine notices the markings on his nose from his glasses, and recalls the woman had the exact same markings on her face. He then asks Juror four if there is any other possible way to get those same markings on his nose, and he replies no. Juror eight then starts to say that the woman was lying, for she did not see the boy kill his father, for she was trying to fall asleep, and she wouldn’t be wearing her glasses to bed. These two examples show how hidden facts slowly come out. This is information left out from the trial that everyone missed, until now. After proving these statements, the jurors started to have doubt in their minds about the boy. It’s important to look at every aspect in as much detail as possible or you could miss out on something. Sure, the old man can say it took him 15 seconds, but as it turns out, it took him longer than that. And sure, the woman can say she saw the boy kill her father, but really all she saw was a blur, for she did not have her glasses on. You can’t always go by what you hear. You have to dig deeper to discover any hidden information that could help against your situation. This is what Juror eight did and it helped support his case. Also from these two examples, it goes to show that you can’t always believe what you hear. The witness’s both were under oath as they spoke in trial, but they could just be doing that for attention. Juror nine points this out for the old man, as he can relate. He is old and unnoticed. He just wants attention, so he could have made himself believe he saw the old man when he really didn’t. As for the woman and the glasses, she didn’t wear her glasses to the trial because she wanted to upgrade her appearance. So she said she saw the boy, seeing as if she didn’t wear glasses at all, but really she did for she had the markings on her nose. Emotions: Negotiations often evoke a variety of emotions, especially fear and anger. Emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down. Juror three from the start showed angry signs of emotion throughout the whole deliberation. He stated how he hadn’t seen his son in two years, and all his anger from his son is taken out on the boy on trial. Juror three wants everyone to agree with him. No matter what information is presented, he sticks with his vote of guilty. He gets mad whenever evidence is brought up or someone proves something wrong. His emotions reach a peak whenever Juror eight calls him a sadist. At this point, Juror three lunges toward Juror eight saying â€Å"I’ll kill him!† Then Juror eight replies, â€Å"You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?† This proves his point about how sometimes people say things they really don’t mean. His emotions got the best of him, and he realized that he really wouldn’t kill the juror. Having your emotions from your personal life come into play during a negotiation is not always a good thing. Juror three should not have taken his anger out on the boy or even on Juror eight because of his son. He was angry at his son for leaving, but he should have put that aside for the deliberation. Having your emotions lay out like that on the table can cause you not to think about the important facts that need to be focused on. Juror eight shows emotion in a positive way. He stays very calm throughout the whole deliberation. By showing no sign of angry emotion, this allows him to keep his composure and control of what he is trying to get across. If negotiators feel positively attracted, they are more likely to feel confident and, as a result, to persist in trying to get their concerns and issues addressed in the negotiation and to achieve better outcomes Bias: I’d like to spend some time discussing an issue that I feel is very important to recognize when it comes to negotiations. This is the issue of bias. We had several discussions in class about bias. The thing that most fascinates me about the concept of bias, is that everyone tends to have a different opinion about it. It can be a very grey area, and many people have varying feelings on its presence and its effect on people’s behavior. Personally, I feel that it’s impossible to completely eliminate all bias from a situation. Even when looking at something objectively, bias still exists. It comes from personal characteristics, experiences, and opinions. This movie does a great job of showing how bias can have an effect on negotiations. I’d like to cite an example from the film regarding juror number ten. This juror is an old man who is very set in his ways. He is among the eleven jurors who found the boy guilty of murder. However, his reason for voting guilty comes from a very different place than the others. The evidence seems to favor a guilty vote, but the film shows us that this gentleman’s vote was sealed the minute he learned the boy was from a slum. During the deliberations, this juror seconds an argument made by a fellow juror. He says, â€Å"Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl out of these places are real trash.† Regardless of this evidence, this shows a bias against the boy from the start. This man is allowing his prejudice against â€Å"slum dwellers† to influence his decision about the verdict. The juror across the table then takes offense to this comment. â€Å"I’ve lived in a slum all my life,† says the juror. This should quell the old man’s argument, but it doesn’t. He still feels strongly about his position, even though a man from a similar background clearly hasn’t followed a path that â€Å"trash† might follow. This demonstrates the power of bias. The greatest example of overcoming bias in this film occurs in the very last minutes. By this point, the jury has reached a vote of 11 to 1 for â€Å"not guilty.† The lone juror who still maintains the boy’s guilt is juror number three. This is the man who hasn’t seen his own son in over two years. Earlier in the deliberations, he explained how he and his son got into a fight when the boy was still a teenager. His son hit him, and things were never the same between them. As the talks between the jurors continues, it becomes more and more evident that this man has a bias against the boy on trial because of what transpired with his own boy. He wants to see this boy killed because he resents his own son for what occurred between them. The initial juror who voted â€Å"not guilty† went as far as calling him a â€Å"sadist† and a â€Å"public avenger.† In the final scene, that juror asks the man to defend his arguments one last time. There is a re asonable doubt in the minds of eleven jurors, and he wants to know why there isn’t one in his. Juror number three begins explaining, yelling the entire time. You can see him getting more and more upset as he continues to pour over evidence that the other men have already proven shaky. Finally, he rips up the picture of him and his son that has slid out of his wallet on the table. He then bursts into tears and cries, â€Å"Not guilty, not guilty.† It was clearly painful for him to confront what happened with his son head on like that. This was creating his bias the entire time. When the evidence appeared to support the boy’s guilt, his bias was less prevalent. But when the evidence that started out convincing ended up being questionable, his bias began to show. He still wanted the boy to be found guilty because of it. This really makes you wonder how often this occurs in the real world. How many innocent men and women have been sent to jail because of biased members of a perceived â€Å"impartial† jury? It’s an imperfect system, dealing with a very i nexact science. Recognizing this is very important. From this course, and from analyzing this film, I have strengthened my belief that bias can’t be eliminated. All a negotiator can do is recognize that bias is constant, and do their best to minimize its effect on their decision making process. If a negotiator recognizes this, they can do more negotiating based on facts and figures rather than personal biases and opinions. Power and Persuasion: An interesting aspect of this movie, as it continues to relate to this course, is the use of power and persuasion. What I find most interesting about power, is the myriad of ways through which it may be obtained. In class, we discussed several ways that power is obtained, and also how it can be used. In this movie, there are many circumstances where the jurors attempt to use power to persuade one another. Perhaps the most prevalent example at an attempt to use power to persuade the others is shown by juror number three. This juror often exudes power when talking down the case with the man who hasn’t turned in a â€Å"guilty† verdict. He begins by explaining all of the evidence again. He discusses the old man who claims he heard the boy, the old lady who says she saw the boy, and the knife discovered by the police who arrived at the murder scene. He is very confident in this evidence, and feels as though he has the power because of it. After taking this course, I find that this is the best way to gain power in a negotiation. The more information you have to support your argument, the more power you have. In turn, this often results in achieving your goals in the negotiation. However, as the process continues, the juror voting â€Å"not guilty† starts to sway the room. The oldest man on the jury is the first to change his vote. The juror from the slums changes his vote not long after that. As this is happening, it appears that juror number three feels as though he is losing power in this negotiation. To counter this, he begins raising his voice when talks. Before long, he is all but yelling at the other jurors who have changed their votes. He attempts to retain his power through intimidation once he sees that the evidence, which he thought was solid, is shown to be shaky and imprecise. Another example of how power is used to persuade others in this film is demonstrated by the stock broker, otherwise known as juror number four. It appears that this juror feels an immediate sense of power in this scenario because he is one of the most, if not the most, accomplished gentleman of the group. He feels that he is probably the most intelligent man on this jury, and demonstrates that when talks. He recalls much of the information from the trial very accurately, and with no notes. He also explains very clearly why he feels the way he feels. Power through intellectual superiority can be very persuasive, and influential. The man he is attempting to persuade does a very good job of keeping his composure. He doesn’t challenge the broker’s power. In fact, he affirms it. He appears to respect that the juror is making valid points and supporting his argument. He goes a different route. He simply takes an issue and asks, â€Å"Is it possible?† While the other jurors refute this claim, the broker remains quiet. As the man slowly begins to disprove some of the testimony from the case, you can see the broker questioning his verdict more intently. Finally, he changes his vote to not guilty. This is where everything turns. The other jurors picked up on the quiet power exuded by the broker, and respected it all along. Once he turned in a â€Å"not guilty† vote, it was only a matter of time before the others joined him. This is convincing tell that this man had a great deal of power in this negotiation. In a less successful attempt to gain power, the angry old man attempts to convince the man of the boy’s guilt through a â€Å"power in numbers† technique. He feels very comfortable with his verdict of â€Å"guilty† because the others feel the same way. During the initial discussions in the deliberation room, he continuously says, â€Å"You know what I mean?† This is an attempt to keep others on his side while he tries to persuade the rogue juror to vote â€Å"guilty.† He feels he has power in this negotiation because he has the majority on his side. This is a common tactic in negotiations. As the film progresses and more and more jurors change their verdict, you can easily see the power leaving the angry old man. He is forced to confront his prejudice and accept that he was wrong. When he is no longer in the majority, his sense of power quickly fades. He becomes defensive and weak as more and more people leave his side. This is most prevalent in the scene where he attempts to defend his â€Å"guilty† vote one last time. He stands up, and continues yelling and shouting his narrow minded opinions, much as he’d done the entire time. His arguments, now more than ever, are being entirely disregarded, and for good reason. Each point he is making is based solely on prejudice. He thinks he is powerful, but nothing he is saying is based on fact, or really has anything to do with the case. One by one, the other jurors begin getting up from the table and ignoring him. Even the juror who was consistently making wise cracks during the deliberations is looking away from him. Soon, no one in the room is backing him. He then retires to the corner, alone. He not only lost the majority, he lost the support of the other men who were still turning in a â€Å"guilty† vote. This is a great example of power shifting, which we discussed in class. You asked us if it’s possible for power to shift during a negotiation, and this is a good demonstration of how it can. Works Cited: Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C.K.S. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100-123. Diamond, S. (2010). Getting More: How to Negotiate to Achieve Your Goals in the Real World. New York City, NY: Crown Publishing Group. Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Gates, S. (2011). The Negotiation Book: Your Definitive Guide To Successful Negotiating (1st ed.). United Kingdom, UK: John Wiley and Sons LTD. Shell , R. G. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People 2nd Edition (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: The Penguin Group. Thompson, L. L. (2008). The Truth About Negotiations . Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Chinese philosophy Essay

. Introduction A. Thesis There are so many different philosophies and religions, and they greatly influence people’s life. In this paper, I am going to introduce and define the representatives of the Western philosophy such as Plato’s metaphysical Dualism and Chinese philosophy like Daoism. And I am going to compare these philosophies and explain the difference between them. ?. Dualism A. Explain Plato’s metaphysical Dualism Plato’s Dualism divided the reality into two different realms of existence (World of the Senses and World of the Forms). One world (the physical world) is constantly changing, and another world (the world of the Forms) is unchanging. Plato further divided these two different realms of existence. The world of Forms can be divided into the higher world (realm of the form) and the lower world (the Empirical world). The world of senses can be divided into physical objects (ordinary objects we perceive) and images (shadows, reflections and pictures). B. Summary of Allegory of Cave Plato explained his metaphysical dualism by using the Allegory of a cave. According to Marc Cohen: In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. However, one day one of them is released from what keeps them the guy sitting, and they look back. At that time, the guy realizes that there are objects and the fire behind people and someone moves the objects. The shadow people have seen is a fake. People who are still sitting have never seen the objects behind them, so they believe that the shadow is real. The guy is free to move, so he starts to run to the exit of the cave. After getting out of the cave, the guy feels dizzy because the world out of the cave is too shiny. After a while, his eyes got used to the brightness and the beautiful world like the mountain, the sky, the river, or the sun is in the eyes of the guy. And then he realizes that the world out of the cave is real. He goes back to the cave and tells people who are still sitting in the cave what he saw out of the cave. However, they do not believe that what the guy told is the truth. C. Interpretation of the Allegory By using this Allegory, we can think about today’s world. There are too much in formation in the world, and the world seems to be narrower than before. Especially the appearance of mass media like newspaper, television, magazine, Internet, or SNS changed how we deal with information. Too much information is created and flows every day, and we can get the information you need any time by the device like a smart phone, a PC or a tablet. However, is the information you can get really the reality? The information created by mass media might be like the shadow in a cave. Before I was born, there was already too much information. I learned much information like Japanese history in a school, and I also know the new information of the incidence that occurs every day at the same time through mass media. So I learned most of things that occurred around the world through the information created by mass media, and the information is like a shadow in Allegory of a Cave. Suppose that an internal warfare is happening in one country. We know about that through mass media. We might see suffers in a TV or in a photo. We feel like understand everything about the war through the picture on TV or words of the News, but that is not a whole thing but just part of that. We need to seek the reality by my own eyes today’s world. ?. Plato’s Legacy According to Philip, â€Å"Plato thought that the soul could and would exist apart from the body and would exist after the death of the body. He offered a â€Å"proof† for this position and was the first to do so in writing that we have any evidence of doing so. He offered several different proofs or arguments none of which are convincing today†. His argument was that humans were composed of bodies and souls, but soul was more important and immortal. His arguments used premises that are questionable today. For example, Plato thought he could conclude that the soul could exist separating from the body because it worked independently from the body when it engaged in pure thought. But today, it is proved that how we think depends on the physical brain works. So this is no longer accepted as true. Plato thought that they are remembering the knowledge implanted in their souls when the souls were in the realm of pure thought and eternal forms before entering into the body after which they forgot as they became confused by physical emotions and feelings and limited experiences through the senses. And that is the only way to explain how people come to know. This is no longer accepted as the best explanation of how people come to have knowledge. However, Plato is credited with being the first human to attempt to set out any sort of a proof that humans had souls and that they survived the death of the body and that they were immortal. A. Descartes-Substance Dualism According to Philip, â€Å"Descartes also believed that the soul existed prior to and separate from the body, and it was immortal. In his view, all of reality consisted of two very different substances: matter or the physical and spirit or the non-physical. † The physical was what would be extended in time and space and the non-physical would not be characterized. He thought that his famous claim that â€Å"I think therefore I am† established not just that he existed but that he existed without a body as a â€Å"thinking thing†. A â€Å"thinking thing† is a thing that thinks and by that would be included: imagining, conceiving, hoping, dreaming, desiring, fearing, conjecturing, reasoning, remembering and more. For him a â€Å"thinking thing† needed no physical parts to do what it does. Modern science has established that there is no evidence of humans that are without a physical body and its brain. There is no evidence that thought is possible without a brain. There is much evidence that what has been associated with Descartes’ â€Å"thinking thing† is now explained solely in term of the brain and how the brain is physically structured and the functioning of the brain. B. Aquinas According to the text, â€Å"Saint Thomas Aquinas is the philosopher who explained five ways to demonstrate the existence of the God within the framework of a posteriori (the knowledge comes from, or after the experience) and developed cosmological and teleological arguments. † I am going to explain one of the demonstrations. The way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things, there is an order of efficient causes. It never happens that the thing is the efficient cause of itself. If you look at one phenomenon, you can see many efficient causes behind it. But you cannot go back to infinity. There must be the first efficient cause. Aquinas claims that that is the God. The Aquinas’ claim is similar to Plato’s claim. He thought the God is the first efficient cause and independent one. That is close to the concept â€Å"the realm of the form† Plato claimed. And the things in the world of sensible things are the secondary things of the God. It is close to â€Å"the Empirical world† Plato claimed. ?. Chinese Natural Cosmology A. Ames `Image of Reason in Chinese Culture† Ames claims the difference between the dominant conceptions of reality in the West and in the Chinese tradition in his â€Å"image of Reason in Chinese Culture†. According to the text, Ames claims that â€Å"to explore the Chinese philosophy, he thought you needed to recognize at least that you are dealing with a fundamentally different world if you are familiar with Western culture. To bring into relief certain features of the dominant Indo-European view and Chinese alternative to it, he constructs a â€Å"logical sense of order with an â€Å"aesthetic† order. † What we call â€Å"logical† sense of order has developed Western philosophical and religious orthodoxy, and it is based on the presumption that there is something permanent, perfect, objective, and universal that disciplines the world of charge and guarantees natural and moral order-some originative and determinative arche, an eternal realm of Platonic edios or â€Å"ideas†, the One True God of the Judeo-Christian universe, a transcendental strongbox of invariable principles or laws, an annalistic method for discerning clear and distinct ideas. In a single-order world, the One God is the initial beginning of the universe. The God is primal and unchanging principle that causes and explains that origin and issues everything from itself, and that is familiar and presupposition in Western tradition. Although the world is explained by â€Å"logical† order in Western tradition, however, there is no â€Å"logical† order in Chinese philosophy. The order of Chinese tradition is immanent in and inseparable from a spontaneously changing world. The universe possesses within itself its organizational principles and its own creative energy. In the view of Chinese tradition, the world creates itself. That is scandalous from the view point of Western scholar reason. The yin and the yan come together and guide the infinite combination of these two opposite source of energy. These two sources of energy make a spontaneous intelligence possible. Yin and yan as the characterization of a particular relationship invariably entail a perception from some particular perspective that enables us to unravel patterns of relatedness and interpret our circumstances. They provide a vocabulary for sorting out the relationship among things as they come together and constitute themselves in unique compositions. Ames also mentions the Chinese word â€Å"li†. In both classical Chinese corpus and modern language, the closest term that approximates â€Å"reason† or â€Å"principle†. He claims that identifying the meaning of the word â€Å"li† correctly is essential to understand Chinese philosophy. According to the text, â€Å"Philosophically, the most familiar uses of li lie somewhere in the cluster â€Å"reasoning† or â€Å"rationale† (A. S. Cua), â€Å"principle† (W.T. Chan), â€Å"organism† (J. Needham), and â€Å"coherence† (W. Peterson). † Among these several alternative translations used for â€Å"li†, although philosophically as protean as â€Å"principle† for Western tradition, unwarrantedly restrict li to a notion of human consciousness and tend to introduce distinction such as animate and inanimate, agency and act, intelligible and sensible. Li is much different from being some independent and immutable originative principle that disciplines a recalcitrant world. It is the fabric of order immanent in the dynamic process of experience. That is why â€Å"psychology† is translated in to Chinese as â€Å"the li of the heart-and-mind,† but then â€Å"physics† is â€Å"the study of the li of things and events. † What separates li rather clearly from Western common understanding of â€Å"principle† is that li is both a unity and a multiplicity. Li is the coherence of any â€Å"member of a set, all members of a set, or the set as a whole. † Both the uniqueness of each particular and the continuities that obtain among them are reflected by this description. Li then is the defining character or ethos of a given community, or any other such composition. Ames also claims another point at which li departs from â€Å"principle. † In Western tradition, the discovery of originative and determinative principle gives us a schema for classifying things and subsuming one thing under another. That is why people seek â€Å"principle† in Western tradition. However, the investigation of li, by contrast, is to seek out patterns that relate things, and to discover resonances between things that make correlations and categorization possible. B. Hans-Gorg Moeller In Daodejing, the meaning of â€Å"the root† is described by using metaphor. From the view of the Daoist, our world is a â€Å"self-generating† process. In Daoism there is no initial beginning for â€Å"logical† order. In Daoism, order is immanent in and inseparable from a spontaneously changing world, and then â€Å"the world creates itself. † In this point of view, the role of â€Å"the root† is very important. â€Å"The root† is an origin of phenomenon, and many things are derived from â€Å"the root. † Unlike many Western philosophical perspectives, this â€Å"root† has a somewhat unique, interesting, and different meaning in it. The Western philosophy’s principle or arche is the first cause of the event. And nothing would exist if there were not any of the Western philosophy’s principle or arche. However, the concept of â€Å"the root† is different of that. From the Daoist perspective, â€Å"the root† is a part of the plant. â€Å"The root† does not exist before the plant although plant cannot exist if there is no â€Å"the root. † That is, â€Å"the root† itself is not a creator of the plant. It is the origin of the growth of the plant. â€Å"The root† is buried in the soil or ground, so it is invisible. However, â€Å"the root† greatly influences its visible part. This illustrates Daoist’s â€Å"autopoiesis,† self-generating concept well, which differs a lot from the Western philosophical concept â€Å"arche,† which is stated or recognized as â€Å"the God. † ?. Comparative Epistemology A. Hellenistic-Prescriptive theoretical knowledge In Western tradition, most of philosophers think there is one principle or one God and things happen from it. And the mind is separable part from the body. One of the examples is Plato. Plato’s dualism is that there are the realm of form and the imperial world. The body belongs to the imperial world and the world is constantly changing. And what we sense by the body is limited, and the Empirical world is not real. The true world is the realm of the form, and the mind belongs to the world. Plato argues that the â€Å"knowledge† continuously exists and must be justified conviction. However, the Empirical world that we belong to is contentiously changing, and there is no unchanging thing in the world. That is why there is no thing from which we can get â€Å"knowledge† in the Empirical world, so we cannot get â€Å"knowledge† by our own senses. The unchanging things exist in the realm of the form, and we cannot reach the world by using our senses. So we need to use our mind to get â€Å"knowledge†. Not all of Western philosophers claim like that, but most of philosophers claim that the truth does not exist in the world where we live today. This concept greatly influences Christianity or other religions that have the one God. In Christianity, there is one God named â€Å"Jesus Christ†, and he is the reason why things happen or why we live. People pray to seek â€Å"knowledge† that exists in the world where we are not living. That is, we cannot get the â€Å"knowledge† about it in the world where we are living, and we need to get it from the other world to know the essence of the things. B. Chinese philosophy-Prescriptive practical On the other hand, there is no the one God in Chinese philosophy. In China, the war occurred constantly, and Chinese dynasty changed over time, so people did not come to rely on one thing. This influenced the Chinese philosopher. Instead of one god or one principle, Chinese philosophers think that the world creates itself and that the world is constituted by the combination of determinacy and indeterminacy, and spontaneous, dynamic changing is the universal principle of the world. In Western tradition, the philosophers try to attribute many phenomenons to the one reason. However, Chinese philosophers think that each thing is â€Å"self-so† creativity, self-generating, and spontaneous. For Chinese philosophy, the Nature is very important, and in Daoism it is important not to try to force thing. That is why there is the concepts in Daoism; wu wei(without intentional action), wu si(without deliberate thought), wu si(without selfish interesting), wu ji(without self-awareness), wu zhi(without knowledge), wu xin(without heart-and-mind). Daoists claim that when you are thinking something, the world is also changing at the same time, so you are missing something. That is why it is important for Daoism to stop thinking by your head, get out of the world of your head, look around the world, and take action. The most important thing for Daoism is that we ought to take action as a part of the world. ?. Conclusion There have been so many philosophers through the history, and each of philosophy has been developed around the world. And how people think about the world is different, depending on the philosophy. Of many philosophies, the significant different philosophies are the Western and Chinese philosophy. In the Western philosophy, the philosophers try to attribute everything to the one principle or the one God. On the other hand, there is no principle, and the philosophers have recognized the world as self-generating process, and the world is the source of itself without no exact start and end point. This thought influences religion and how people think about the world. Around the world, many wars related to religion occur today. The difference between the religions is just what ancient people developed, so it is important to try to understand the difference in today’s world. Reference. Pecorino, Philip, Ph. D. â€Å"Chapter 6 : The Mind-Body Problem Section 3: DUALISM. † Introduction To Philosophy an Online Textbook. Queensborough Community College, CUNY, n. d. Web. 4 Dec 2013. . Deutsch, Eliot. Introduction to World Philosophies. 1st ed. 509. New Jersey: A Pearson Education Company, 1997. Ex-255-256. Print. Deutsch, Eliot. Introduction to World Philosophies. 1st ed. 509. New Jersey: A Pearson Education Company, 1997. Ex-469. Print. Cohen, Marc. â€Å"The Allegory of the Cave. † Philosophy 320 History of Ancient Philosophy. University of Washington, 07 11 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013. .

Green Chemistry Essay

Chemo-enzymatic synthesis of optically pure rivastigmine intermediate using alcohol dehydrogenase from baker’s yeast. Authors: Madhuresh K. Sethi? , Somashekar R. Bhandya? , Anish Kumar, Nagaraj Maddur, Rohit Shukla,V. S. N. Jayalakshmi Mittapalli Published: Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic 91 (2013) 87– 92 Paper 2 : Asymmetric synthesis of an enantiomerically pure rivastigmine intermediate using ketoreductase Authors : Madhuresh K. Sethi, Somashekar R. Bhandya, Nagaraj Maddur,  Rohit  Shukla, Anish Kumar, V. S. N. Jayalakshmi Mittapalli Published: Tetrahedron: Asymmetry,  Volume 24, Issue 7,  15 April 2013,  Pages 374-379 ON JOB EXPERIENCE IN REGULATORY AFFAIRS Organization: Intertech Labs, Hyderabad Guide: T. Raja Rao * Successfully completed course in Drug Regulatory Affairs (September 2010 – October 2011) * Gained experience of compiling , reviewing & filing of Technical Dossiers (DMF, EDMF, ANDA) * Performed Post Regulatory Audits as a part of training program * ICH Guidelines Marketing authorization in Europe(Mutual recognition procedure, Centralized procedure &Decentralized procedure) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS| Year| Course| Institute| University/Board| Aggregate| 2008-10| M. Pharmacy| University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences| Panjab University| 67%| 2004-08| B. Pharmacy| University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences| Panjab University| 64%| 2002| 10+2| City Montessori School, Lucknow| ISC| 75%| 2000| 10th standard| City Montessori School, Lucknow| ICSE| 82 %| ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS * Ranked 2nd in M. Pharmacy in Pharma Chemistry Section * Scored 93. 99 percentile in GATE , 2008 * Placement cell representative , UIPS (2008- 2010) * Delegate in CHASCON 2009, IPC 2008 EXTRA CURRICULAR ACHIEVEMENTS * Winner Intra Department Football Match – 2007 * 1st Runners up , Intra Department Cricket Match – 2005 * 2nd Prize , Intra Department Chess Competition – 2005 COMPUTER PROFICIENCY * Operating System: Microsoft XP, Vista & Windows 7. Application software: MS Office, MS excel MS access & PowerPoint. * Proficiency in handling various computing software and packages including effective usage of Pub Med, Medline, Sci Finder and other research search engines. STRENGTHS * Strong Academic Orientation * Organized, Systematic & Always looking for Perfection in my work HOBBIES * Surfing the net as a means for exchanging thoughts and views and with the aim of networking. * Watching movies & playing chess REFERENCES * On request

Final paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Final paper - Essay Example Those behind these acts claim that they are doing this to protect the interest of Islam. This has certainly not helped the cause of Islam. In fact this has made the life difficult for many of those following the religion. Incidents when leading personalities from many countries having Muslim names are harassed in the name of frisking at airports in US, UK and Germany highlight the kind of suspicions that has arisen in the western nations about those following Islam. Investigating agencies have been pointing towards organizations like Al-Qaeda and people like Osama Bin Laden for carrying out major terror acts happening around the world. Such revelations have in a sense brought the western nations on a collision course with Islam in general. But it is equally true that majority of the Muslims around the world not only denounce such heinous acts, but they are the worst sufferers. Therefore, why is it that the despite being at the receiving end the followers of Islam get labeled as intol erant. Therefore, it is a critical period for the Islamic world and they need to take on the menace head on in order to bring about some pragmatic changes in the attitude of the Western nations towards Islam. Some such steps could be; i. Gradually dissociating themselves from terror related groups: As of now the general impression is that, even if not many nations are supporting the terror groups, they are not coming out openly against those groups either. The silence could be because of some antipathy towards some of the policies of the western nations, but it is indirectly helping the cause of the terrorist outfits. This certainly cannot be done overnight and it has to be a gradual process, because in case of sudden announcements, those making such announcements will themselves become targets of terror outfits. ii. The terrorist activities cannot be carried

Political Multimedia Assignments Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Political Multimedia Assignments - Essay Example Although they use the fanatical right as a way of gaining the support of people who are not within the upper 1% in wealth in the nation, the Republican Party still stands on its original platform of less regulation and more freedoms and rights for corporations. This is in direct conflict with the needs of workers, but workers have flocked to the Republican Party due to fear of losing the rights they have or in support of radical ideas about the world concerning religion, guns, or abortion. This is corporate greed at its worst. What has happened as a consequence is that the irrational and unreasonable now have a voice and official support. Silver is placing the consequences of such hard-lined campaigning for ‘sides’ into context in order to show that people are becoming more about their political party than about the issues due to the polarization. Silver suggests that the Republican Party has now created a sort of vacuum in which they now must continue their fanaticism i n order to maintain those they convinced to join them. Instead of being able to come closer to the middle, in order to keep those they convinced to join they are stuck well over to the right. ... The Republican Party remade itself to be the party of the people through giving voice to radicalized beliefs. Now they are stuck with it. The Story of Stuff â€Å"The Story of Stuff† shows how little control consumers have in what they buy and what they are exposed to from their stuff. It also shows the blatant manipulation that all consumers experience. Most consumers know they are being manipulated, but still play into consuming more and more goods. The need to consume resources and then throw them away, according to the video, was designed. What does that mean for American society? It seems that it started with 19th century colonialism where one state felt they had the right to ‘claim’ another state and consume its resources. It could go back to the time of exploration where lands such as the Americas were claimed for Spain or England, but those times still allowed for the natural consumption of resources. Although, the destruction of buffalo for their hides by those European Ancestors who sought to claim the American West who then left the meat to rot in large fields of blood might be seen as one of the beginnings of this problem. The European American habit of conquering and stripping a land from its indigenous people, leaving them without the means to sustain their cultures as they once were is at the heart of this problem, and it began with those who claimed the right to colonialism. According to the video, Americans literally consumer 99% of what they buy which will be disposed of by the end of its first year of use. This is literal consumption. Every week as the trash is thrown out is seems that there are more and more quantities of

Waste Management (Firm Analysis) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Waste Management (Firm Analysis) - Essay Example nvironment protection and regarded as an interface between the production, distribution and consumption of goods on the one hand, and soil, groundwater, air and climate on the other. Hence, it is an essential collaborator in the perspective of sustainable development. In the current scenario, industrialized nations are busy enhancing their regulatory frameworks and waste management infrastructure. As it is, the industry deals with extensively rising environmental and legal standards, best practices and the need for greater efficiency, quality management and occupational health aspects. Apparently, with the diversity and intricacy of products and accordingly of wastes, byproducts, and residues, there is no single solution to the waste treatment demands of today. A suitable combination of technologies is necessary in order to meet and respond to the many technical, ecological and economic requirements of integrated waste management on a regional level. As long as industry and consumers produce waste, an infrastructure is needed for their proper treatment and detoxification and for the secure and continuing disposal of residues (Hunt, 1990). The idea of producer’s responsibility was realized by swinging or reallocating the financial burden for the appropriate treatment or recycling of end-of-life products to manufacturers. This move established a new line of communication between the environmental sector and the manufacturing segments of society. In this scheme, waste managers convey information concerning designs for recycling and the design for disposal upstream to producers and manufacturers, thereby advocating the cause of the environment’s capacities and environmental constraints (Deyle, 1990). Today, the waste management industry is highly conscious and responsive of the significance of social aspects. These include, among others, the siting of facilities and introduction of novel collection schemes, educating consumers, training workers and staff,