The Genetics And Environment On The Intelligenece Through...

Navdeep Kalia General Psychology (064) 03/01/2015 Assesment of The Genetics and Environment on the Intelligenece Through Twin Studies The primary source scientific experiment to be analyzed for this paper is the â€Å"A Twin Study into the Genetic and Environmental Influences on Academic Performance in Science in nine-year-old Boys and Girls† (Haworth, Claire M.A., Philip Dale, and Robert Plomin. â€Å"A Twin Study into the Genetic and Environmental Influences on Academic Performance in Science in Nine-Year-Old Boys and Girls.† International journal of science education 30.8 (2008): 1003. PMC. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.). There are many different variables one can look at in order to answer the question of how identical are the identical twins. In this study intelligence is selected as a variable to be analyzed. The study explores the impact of environment, genetics and sex on intelligence. What influences intelligence has been studied as part of health and development for a long period of time? This study provides with data on genetic factor and environment effect on development. Also it will help us understand how identical twins can or cannot be different regardless of their similar genetic makeup. With the introduction of the theory of evolution came the debate of nature vs nurture or genes vs environment. According to theory of evolution, organisms adapt to the changes in their environment. Indicating that the environment causes genetic changes ultimately changes in phenotype

Who Killed Mexican Warlord Pancho Villa

Legendary Mexican warlord Pancho Villa was a survivor. He lived through dozens of battles, outlasted bitter rivals such as Venustiano Carranza and Victoriano Huerta, and even managed to evade a massive US manhunt. On July 20, 1923, however, his luck ran out: assassins ambushed his car, shooting it over 40 times with Villa and his bodyguards inside. For many, the question lingers: who killed Pancho Villa? Key Role in the Revolution Pancho Villa was one of the main protagonists of the Mexican Revolution. He was a bandit chieftain in 1910 when Francisco Madero began the revolution against aging dictator Porfirio Diaz. Villa joined Madero and never looked back. When Madero was murdered in 1913, all hell broke loose and the nation fell apart. By 1915 Villa had the most powerful army of any of the great warlords who were dueling for control of the nation. When rivals Venustiano Carranza and Alvaro Obregà ³n united against him, however, he was doomed. Obregà ³n crushed Villa at the Battle of Celaya and other engagements. By 1916, Villa’s army was gone, although he continued to wage a guerrilla war and was a thorn in the side of the United States as well as his former rivals. His Surrender and His Vast Hacienda In 1917, Carranza was sworn in as President  but was assassinated in 1920 by agents working for Obregà ³n. Carranza had reneged on an agreement to hand over the presidency to Obregà ³n in the 1920 elections, but he had underestimated his former ally. Villa saw the death of Carranza as an opportunity. He began negotiating the terms of his surrender. Villa was allowed to retire to his vast hacienda at Canutillo: 163,000 acres, much of which was suitable for agriculture or livestock. As part of the terms of his surrender, Villa was supposed to stay out of national politics, and he didn’t need to be told not to cross the ruthless Obregà ³n. Still, Villa was quite safe in his armed camp far in the north. Villa was fairly quiet from 1920 to 1923. He straightened out his personal life, which had become complicated during the war, ably managed his estate and stayed out of politics. Although their relationship had warmed a bit, Obregà ³n never forgot about his old rival, quietly waiting in his secure northern ranch. His Many Enemies Villa had made many enemies by the time of his death in 1923: President Alvaro Obregà ³n: Obregà ³n and Villa had clashed many times on the field of battle, with Obregà ³n generally emerging victorious. The two men had remained on speaking terms since Villa’s 1920 surrender, but Obregà ³n always feared Villa’s popularity and reputation. Had Villa declared himself in rebellion, thousands of men would have instantly flocked to his cause.Minister of the Interior Plutarco Elias Calles: Calles was a northerner like Villa and had become a general in the revolution by 1915. He was a shrewd politician, allying himself with the winners throughout the conflict. He held important posts in state governments and Carranza made him Minister of the Interior. He helped Obregà ³n betray Carranza, however, and kept his post. A close ally of Obregà ³n, he stood to take the presidency in 1924. He hated Villa, having fought him in the revolution on more than one occasion, and it was well-known that Villa opposed Calles’ progressive econo mic policies.Melità ³n Lozoya: Lozoya had been the administrator of the Canutillo hacienda before it had been given to Villa. Lozoya had embezzled huge sums from the hacienda while he was in charge, and Villa demanded it back...or else. The graft was apparently on such a scale that Lozoya could not hope to repay it, and may have killed Villa to avoid his own death.Jesà ºs Herrera: The Herrera family had been loyal Villa supporters at the outset of the revolution: Maclovio and Luis Herrera had been officers in his army. They betrayed him, however, and joined Carranza. Maclovio and Luis were killed at the Battle of Torreà ³n. Villa captured Josà © de Luz Herrera in March of 1919 and executed him and his two sons. Jesà ºs Herrera, the lone surviving member of the Herrera clan, was Villa’s sworn enemy and attempted several times to assassinate him from 1919 – 1923.Jesà ºs Salas Barraza: Salas was another old revolutionary who had first joined the fight against Vic toriano Huerta. After Huerta’s defeat, Salas joined Obregà ³n and Carranza against Villa. In 1922 he was elected congressman from Durango  but never forgot his old grievances against Villa.Governor of Durango Jesà ºs Agustà ­n Castro: Castro was another former foe of Villa: he was a supporter of Carranza who had been ordered to hunt Villa down in 1918-1919 without success.Any Number of Other People: Villa was a hero to some, a devil to others. During the revolution, he was responsible for thousands of deaths: some directly, some indirectly. He had a quick fuse and had murdered many men in cold blood. He was also a womanizer who had a number of â€Å"wives,† some of which were only girls when he took them away. Dozens if not hundreds of fathers and brothers might have had a score to settle with Villa. Assassination by Gunfire Villa rarely left his ranch and when he did, his 50 armed bodyguards (all of whom were fanatically loyal) accompanied him. In July of 1923, Villa made a fatal mistake. On July 10 he went by car to the neighboring town of Parral to serve as godfather at the baptism of the child of one of his men. He had a couple of armed bodyguards with him, but not the 50 that he often traveled with. He had a mistress in Parral and stayed with her for a while after the baptism, finally returning to Canutillo on July 20. He never made it back. Assassins had rented a house in Parral on the street which connects Parral with Canutillo. They had been waiting for three months for their chance to hit Villa. As Villa drove past, a man in the street shouted â€Å"Viva Villa!† This was the signal that the assassins were waiting for. From the window, they rained down gunfire on Villa’s car. Villa, who had been driving, was killed almost instantly. Three other men in the car with him were killed, including the chauffeur and Villa’s personal secretary, and one bodyguard died later of his injuries. Another bodyguard was injured but managed to escape. Who Killed Pancho Villa? Villa was buried the next day and people began asking who had ordered the hit. It quickly became apparent that the assassination had been very well organized. The killers were never caught. Federal troops in Parral had been sent away on a bogus mission, which meant that the killers could finish their job and leave at their leisure without fear of being chased. Telegraph lines out of Parral had been cut. Villa’s brother and his men did not hear of his death until hours after it had happened. An investigation into the killing was stymied by uncooperative local officials. The people of Mexico wanted to know who had killed Villa, and after a few days, Jesà ºs Salas Barraza stepped forward and claimed responsibility. This let many higher officials off the hook, including Obregà ³n, Calles, and Castro. Obregà ³n at first refused to arrest Salas, claiming his status as a congressman gave him immunity. Then he relented and Salas was sentenced to 20 years, although the sentence was commuted three months later by the Governor of Chihuahua. No one else was ever charged with any crime in the matter. Most Mexicans suspected a cover-up, and they were right. Conspiracy With Several Participants? Most historians believe the death of Villa played out something like this: Lozoya, the crooked former administrator of the Canutillo ranch, started making plans to kill Villa in order to avoid having to repay him. Obregà ³n got word of the plot and at first toyed with the idea of stopping it, but was talked into letting it go ahead by Calles and others. Obregà ³n told Calles to make sure that the blame would never fall on him. Salas Barraza was recruited and agreed to be the â€Å"fall guy† as long as he was not prosecuted. Governor Castro and Jesà ºs Herrera were also involved. Obregà ³n, through Calles, sent 50,000 pesos to Fà ©lix Lara, commander of the federal garrison at Parral, to make sure he and his men were â€Å"out on maneuvers† at the time. Lara did him one better, assigning his best marksmen to the assassination squad. So,  who killed Pancho Villa? If one name must be linked to his murder, it should be that of Alvaro Obregà ³n. Obregà ³n was a very powerful president who ruled through intimidation and terror. The conspirators would never have gone ahead had Obregà ³n opposed the plot. There was no man in Mexico brave enough to cross Obregà ³n. In addition, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest that Obregà ³n and Calles were not mere bystanders  but actively participated in the conspiracy. Source McLynn, Frank. Carroll and Graf, New York, 2000.

Liberty vs responsibility Free Essays

Liberty v/s Responsibility Liberty is the most valued and sought after outcome of any political society. It is a mark of a productive and prosperous society where people enjoy a set of fundamental rights for e. g. We will write a custom essay sample on Liberty vs responsibility or any similar topic only for you Order Now :- right to free speech, fair trial, etc. On the other hand social responsibility towards others and oneself unites the community and increases social well-being. Various political philosophers have come up with different ways to prioritize one over the other and some have believed to strike a balance between the two. This leads to an interesting political debate that at what point we draw a line etween liberty and responsibility, where in we have maximum liberty and minimum responsibility. In this paper I assert the libertarian political thought which resolves this debate by striking a fine balance between liberty and responsibility. To support my argument, I apply the ideas of John Locke who was a 17th century classical liberal philosopher (for first reason) and much of libertarian political thought is inspired from his works. For second reason I apply the ideas of libertarian philosopher Friedrich Hayek. Towards the end I discuss the principles of libertarianism which clearly address this conflict. The first reason is the primary reason why people have desire to loot or plunder and that reason is scarcity. Scarcity is also the main reason why we have to follow a set of rules and act responsibly. If there were no scarcity, then there would be a surplus of goods and resources for everyone and any person’s wishes and desires would be fulfilled no matter how unlimited they were and his/her actions would have no consequence on anybody else. But we do live in a world where there is scarcity and that cannot be avoided. So, we have to interact and exchange goods with one another and that involves a set of rules for social conduct. In this context, John Locke believed in the rightful accumulation of property (scarce good) by mixing labor with natural resources (Nozick 175). He didn’t believe in accumulation of property via coercion, fraud or theft. As far as the extent of accumulation is concerned he believed that too much property should not be consumed that very little is left for others because that would hinder someone else’s right to accumulation of private property. Nozick had given this a term â€Å"Lockean Proviso† (Nozick 175). Applying the Lockean proviso to the conflict between liberty and responsibility, in the presence of carcity, there has to be a certain set of responsibilities that people need to fulfill (mentioned above, Locke called them â€Å"natural laws† (Korab)) mainly including the one where they don’t over-consume resources so that less is left for others and at the same time enjoy the liberties granted by the social contract. It’s important to note that the responsibilities are optimum that if there are more or less responsibilities there will be less to no liberty. The second reason is that responsibility is important for liberty to exist is that it encourages good decision making by making people accountable for their actions. Friedrich Hayek in his book â€Å"Constitution of Liberty’ said that a free society depends more than any other on people being held responsible for their actions (â€Å"American Spectator†) Applying his idea, in lite it one is awarded tor achieving a set ot goals by the proper use of resources he/she was provided with, then that person should also not be helped and made to suffer the consequences of making a bad decision. In the long term, this suffering will help him make better decisions. Additionally, if the person doesn’t suffer the consequences, he/she will develop a propensity for xcessive risk taking which wouldn’t be good for the society. Another implication of not taking responsibility is that someone else ends up taking responsibility for it and then that person has a right to curb the latter’s freedom. For e. g. :- if the government decides to bailout a firm which didn’t make right decisions, then the government will force the company to take some hard decisions which might go against the interests of the people in that company. So, learning to take responsibility from bad choices increases self-ownership and thereby upholds one’s liberty. It also improves one-self hich is always beneficial towards society. Libertarianism has two main principles: the non-aggression principle and the preservation of individual rights and private property (â€Å"Libertarianism†). According to Libertarianism these are the only two responsibilities the person owes to other people in the community. He/she ought not to show aggression and encroach upon any other person’s rights in the community. Any responsibility more than that comes at the cost of liberty. Based on the reasons that I gave, Libertarianism strikes a fine balance between liberty and responsibility by not placing laws that achieve a specific outcome unlike a eviathan government. At the sane times the laws that it places are minimal and only lead to a further expansion of liberty among all. One doesn’t want too many laws because that leads to a powerful government where there is no liberty and one also can’t manage not having any laws because scarcity and greed will lead to a state of war of â€Å"one against all†. Libertarianism gives a solution that is somewhere between those two extremes. To conclude, libertarianism believes in the importance of individual liberty which can be found in the fundamental rights that people enjoy and duties/responsibilities hich people are obligated to follow. It’s important for fundamental duties to exist because without which liberty won’t exist. However, responsibility wouldn’t have any meaning in the absence of liberty and that it derives its existence from the presence of the latter. How to cite Liberty vs responsibility, Papers