SLAVIC 210 Chapter Notes - Chapter BK Book 8: Fenya

24 views1 pages

plumminnow70

16 Mar 2018

School

Northwestern University

Department

Slavic Languages & Literature

Course

SLAVIC 210

Professor

Morson Saul

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Mitya goes to grushenka"s to grill fenya on where grushenka is and why. Fenya is frightened of mitya and eagerly answers all his questions about. Grushenka and "the officer" she went to see in mokroe. Dmitri quickly realizes "from the first word" that grushenka has loved this man the whole time and he has been blind to it. Mitya haphazardly explains to fenya why he is covered in blood, but it doesn"t really make sense and she is more frightened than she was before. Mitya leaves suddenly to go to pyotr ilyitch perhotin, to whom he had just earlier pawned off his pistols for money, to get them back and now suddenly he has the money to pay for them. Dmitri does not seem like himself not drunk but just very preoccupied. We had a row - and made it up. Pyotr to mitya: "money"s like dirt or water to you it seems"

Related Questions

Roger Maxwell is very health-conscious. He runs, swims, and hikes; follows a lowcarbohydrate diet; and generally feels great. He sees a physician when he needs to, in addition to annual physical exams at the large company where he is an engineer. He'd never allow himself to get so out of shape that heart disease would be a risk. Because of his strict adherence to this healthy lifestyle, Roger is surprised when a medical intern, gazing at his yearly elecfrocardiogram (ECG) at his work physical, clearly picks up on something.

"What? What are you looking at?" Roger blurts out while buttoning up his shirt.

"Oh, it's probably nothing." But she doesn't look like it's probably nothing.

"The heart murmur? My mom's been telling me about it since childhood. Not a big deal. The doctors called it something last year, something I never heard of." "Did you check it out?" asks the intern.

"Nah. It wasn't bothering me, so I forgot about it. Why? What's wrong?"

"Well, maybe you should ask the doctor to explain it again and suggest what to do."

"About what?"

"The doctor will explain it. Please don't worry, though," says the intern as she rushes off to the next patient.

Roger's electrocardiograms had in fact been showing that he has had long QT syndrome, and not a heart murmur, for many years. The doctor explains that this is a problem with the heart's rhythm, and not its valves. Roger goes home and Googles long QT syndrome right away. What he finds concerns him enough to alert his relatives.

Long QT syndrome is a lengthening in the time that it takes the ventricles (the lower two heart chambers) to recover after a contraction, called the QT interval on an electrocardiogram. This delay is called torsade de pointes, and it causes lightheadedness upon standing or even fainting, as blood pressure drops when the heart rhythm becomes abnormal. If the arrhythmia turns into the more erratic condition called ventricular fibrillation, it can be deadly. Some cases â¢of sudden cardiac arrest in people who apparently do not have heart disease are in fact due to long QT syndrome. This 'may have been the case with Roger's aunt, Amelia, his mother's sister, who died at age 34 of what was thought to be a heart attack, but, now Roger realizes, was more likely an arrhythmia. Still, with only one affected relative, Roger had never thought of his aunt's â¢early demise as a family history, especially since his mother is healthy.

Roger reads that in people with some forms of long QT syndrome, fatal arrhythmia can be triggered by intense emotions or a sudden loud sound. The first recorded case of the condition was a little girl, who collapsed dead â¢when her teacher suddenly yelled at her. Her older brother had died in a similar circumstance. Suddenly, Roger remembers that his daughter Sheila faints very easily. She even passed out once at a rock concert because she got so excited. He'd never panicked over it because his mother fainted easily, too. A pattern was emerging.

Long QT syndrome is caused by mutations in any of at least 10 genes that encode either proteins that form parts of ion channels (potassium, sodium, or calcium) or proteins that affect the functioning of these channels. Ion channels control the spread of nerve impulses and the resulting muscle contraction. The time for the heart's reeovery after a beat, called repolarization, extends the period when ions are trapped inside heart muscle cells because the channels are blocked, too slow to open, or too quick to close in people who are at elevated risk due to inheriting a mutation. People with long QT syndrome can experience arrhythmia if they take certain drugs that prolong the QT interval. These drugs include certain antibiotics, antidepressants, and diuretics ("water pills").

Roger reads about the different genes and drug combinations that cause long QT syndrome on Wikipedia, and then he scans www.genetests.org to find labs that test for all of them. Only then does he make an appointment with a cardiologist, and he arranges to have his blood and that of his daughter and mother sent to one of the labs. Two weeks later, he learns that they all have a dominant mutation in a gene called HERG (for "human ether-a-go-go") that causes long QT syndrome type 2 (LQT2). Even healthy family members could have inherited the mutation, because 15 percent of people with long QT syndrome do not have symptoms. The concern is their increased risk of developing symptoms in the futureâperhaps suddenly.

Question 1 : Roger is upset that in the past doctors had not been more insistent that he follow up on the abnormal ECG pattern. When he mentions this to his primary care physician, she answers, "I didn't say anything because you are so healthy, and people who have cardiac arrest from long QT do so in young adulthood. You're too old to worry about it." But Roger should be worried, because

a. he looks younger than he is, so could still be at risk

b. the condition can be inherited, so others in the family could be affected.

c. he could die at any time.

d. he can no longer take antibiotics.

e. long QT syndrome can cause cholesterol to build up in his coronary arteries.

2. Individuals who should take genetic tests for long QT syndrome are

a. all the people in generation IV.

b. Eric, Joan and Peter, and then Dylan, Anika, Sean, Keri, and Anna if a parent has the mutation.

c. Juanita, Larry, Joan, Peter, and Ellie.

d. Abe, Sara, Craig, Philip, Edwin, and Yvonne.

e. Only those who are athletic.

3. The mode of inheritance of long QT syndrome in the Maxwell family is

a. X-Iinked recessive

.b. autosomal recessive.

c. autosomal dominant.

d. sex-limited.

e. X-Iinked dominant.

4. Some people who inherit the same mutation as Roger do not experience any symptoms. This means that the mutation is

a. variably expressive.

b. genetically heterogeneic.

c. polygenic.

d. incompletely penetrant.

e. dominant.

5). The fact that mutations in any of several genes can cause long QT syndrome means that the condition is

a. variably expressive.

b. genetically heterogeneic.

c. polygenic.

d. incompletely penetrant.

e.recessive.

6). The risk that Sean, Keri, or Anna has inherited the family's mutation for long QT syndrome is

a. 1

b. Â¾

c. Â¼

d. Â¼

e. 1/8

7) Roger is relieved that he does not have- LQT7, which affects skeletal as well as cardiac muscle, causing short stature and scoliosis. He is also glad that he doesn't have LQT8, which causes many symptoms, or either of two types that also cause deafness. These other forms of the condition, with more than one symptom, exhibit

a. invariable expressivity.

b. complete penefrance.

c. genetic homogeneity.

d. pleiotropy.

e. phenocopy.

8) The reason that mutations in different genes all cause the same phenotype of extended QT interval on an ECG is that

a. the heart is an extremely complex organ.

b. the genes all encode proteins that affect ion channels essential for maintaining heartbeat.

c. the genes all encode the same protein.

d. the mutations all affect the genes in the same way.

e. the QT interval is highly variable, even within individuals at different times.

9). A phenotypic pattern in a family that could be due to inherited long QT syndrome is

a. sudden cardiac death in one or more young people and individuals who faint easily.

b. many individuals who eat a very fatty diet and are sedentary but do not develop heart disease.

c. many individuals with hypertension.

d. many individuals who suffer heart attacks after age 50.

e. a family with rnany athletes who have very low heart rates because of intense and frequent exercise.

What does this article suggest to us about how people should go about to truly maximize their level of utility from their limited incomes?

Can Money Buy You Happiness?

It's true to some extent. But chances are you're not getting the most bang for your buck.

New research is suggesting that happiness is determined not by how much money one earns, but rather, how one spends it. University of British Columbia associate professor Elizabeth Dunn explains why. Photo: Getty.
By

Andrew Blackman November 10, 2014

It's an age-old question: Can money buy happiness?

Over the past few years, new research has given us a much deeper understanding of the relationship between what we earn and how we feel. Economists have been scrutinizing the links between income and happiness across nations, and psychologists have probed individuals to find out what really makes us tick when it comes to cash.

The results, at first glance, may seem a bit obvious: Yes, people with higher incomes are, broadly speaking, happier than those who struggle to get by.

But dig a little deeper into the findings, and they get a lot more surprising and a lot more useful.

In short, this latest research suggests, wealth alone doesn't provide any guarantee of a good life. What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it. For instance, giving money away makes people a lot happier than lavishing it on themselves. And when they do spend money on themselves, people are a lot happier when they use it for experiences like travel than for material goods.

With that in mind, here's what the latest research says about how people can make smarter use of their dollars and maximize their happiness.

Experiences Are Worth More Than You Think

Ryan Howell was bothered by a conundrum. Numerous studies conducted over the past 10 years have shown that life experiences give us more lasting pleasure than material things, and yet people still often deny themselves experiences and prioritize buying material goods.

So, Prof. Howell, associate professor of psychology at San Francisco State University, decided to look at what's going on. In a study published earlier this year, he found that people think material purchases offer better value for the money because experiences are fleeting, and material goods last longer. So, although they'll occasionally splurge on a big vacation or concert tickets when they're in a more money-conscious mode, they stick to material goods.

But in fact, Prof. Howell found that when people looked back at their purchases, they realized that experiences actually provided better value.

What we find is that there's this huge misinformed forecast, he says. People think that experiences are only going to provide temporary happiness, but they actually provide both more happiness and more lasting value. And yet we still keep on buying material things, he says, because they're tangible and we think we can keep on using them.

Cornell University psychology professor Thomas Gilovich has reached similar conclusions. People often make a rational calculation: I have a limited amount of money, and I can either go there, or I can have this, he says. If I go there, it'll be great, but it'll be done in no time. If I buy this thing, at least I'll always have it. That is factually true, but not psychologically true. We adapt to our material goods.

It's this process of hedonic adaptation that makes it so hard to buy happiness through material purchases. The new dress or the fancy car provides a brief thrill, but we soon come to take it for granted.

Experiences, on the other hand, tend to meet more of our underlying psychological needs, says Prof. Gilovich. They're often shared with other people, giving us a greater sense of connection, and they form a bigger part of our sense of identity. If you've climbed in the Himalayas, that's something you'll always remember and talk about, long after all your favorite gadgets have gone to the landfill.

And, crucially, we tend not to compare our experiences with other people so much. Keeping up with the Joneses is much more prominent for material things than for experiential things, he says. Imagine you've just bought a new computer that you really like, and I show up and say I've paid the same amount for the one with a brighter monitor and faster processor. How much would that bug you?

In experiments he has run, it bugs people a lot. But when people are told to imagine they've gone on vacation to New Zealand, and someone else has had a slightly better vacation, it bothers people somewhat, but you still have your own experiences and your own memories, and so it tends to trouble you less.

In a recent paper called Waiting for Merlot, Prof. Gilovich and colleagues showed that we also get more pleasure out of anticipating experiences than anticipating the acquisition of material things. People waiting for an event were generally excited, whereas waiting for material things seemed to have an impatient quality.

Don't adapt to what you buy.

One of the main reasons why having more stuff doesn't always make us happy is that we adapt to it. Human beings are remarkably good at getting used to changes in their lives, especially positive changes,says Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside. If you have a rise in income, it gives you a boost, but then your aspirations rise too. Maybe you buy a bigger home in a new neighborhood, and so your neighbors are richer, and you start wanting even more. You've stepped on the hedonic treadmill. Trying to prevent that or slow it down is really a challenge.

One approach that can work, she says, is consciously trying to foster appreciation and gratitude for what you have. The process of adaptation, after all, comes from taking what you have for granted, so you can slow it down by reminding yourself of why you value what you have.

It could be as simple as setting aside time every day to follow the traditional advice of counting your blessings. Or you might want to keep a daily journal or express your gratitude to other people. The key is to find a way to remain conscious of everything you own and avoid simply adapting to having it around.

Because you're working against your natural inclination, Prof. Lyubomirsky acknowledges that feelings of gratitude and appreciation can be very difficult to sustain. If your journal or daily list becomes just a stale routine, it will no longer have much effect. You might have to keep switching techniques.

Increasing variety, novelty or surprise can also help you to enjoy your possessions more. When things become unchanging, that's when you adapt to them, Prof. Lyubomirsky says.

If you keep a painting hanging in the same spot on the same wall, for example, you'll stop noticing it after a while. But swap it with a painting from another room, and you'll see each of them with fresh eyes, and appreciate them more. Try sharing your possessions with other people, too, and opening yourself up to new experiences, she says.

This could even mean depriving yourself of your possessions for a while, perhaps by lending them or sharing them with someone else. Elizabeth Dunn, associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and co-author of the book Happy Money, recently conducted an experiment where she sent people home with a big bag of chocolate, telling some of them to eat as much of it as they could and others that they were forbidden to eat it. A third group could choose how much to eat.

The result? The people who had been forbidden from eating chocolate were able to enjoy their next chocolate bar much more than those who'd either eaten a lot or consumed their normal amount. Giving something up temporarily can actually help to preserve our capacity to enjoy it, Prof. Dunn says.

Try Giving It Away

The paradox of money is that although earning more of it tends to enhance our well-being, we become happier by giving it away than by spending it on ourselves.

That's the finding from a series of studies by Prof. Dunn. She began by handing out cash to students on campus and telling some to spend it on themselves and others to spend it on someone else. Those who spent money on other people were happier than those who treated themselves.

Prof. Dunn has since repeated the experiment in other countries across the world and has extended it to look at whether people were still happy when giving away their own money rather than free money handed to them by a professor. She found that in countries as diverse as Canada, South Africa, and Uganda, giving away money consistently made people happier. This was even true when people were giving away their own money, and even when they themselves were relatively poor.

She also worked with economists to analyze survey data from 100 countries in the Gallup World Poll, and found that people who donated money to charity were happier, in poor and rich countries alike.

The fact that we were able to observe the same effect that we'd seen in Canada in places like South Africa and Uganda was probably the biggest surprise of my career, she says. A lot of us think we'll give to charity one day, when we are richer, but actually, we see the benefits of giving even among people who are struggling to meet their own basic needs.

What moves the needle in terms of happiness is not so much the dollar amount you give, Prof. Dunn says, but the perceived impact of your donation. If you can see your money making a difference in other people's lives, it will make you happy even if the amount you gave was quite small.

Be Sure to Buy Time, Too

It's also important to consider how what you're buying will affect how you spend your time. That big house in the suburbs may seem like a good idea, but a 2004 study by Alois Stutzer and Bruno Frey of the University of Zurich found that people with longer commutes reported lower overall life satisfaction, all other things being equal. They calculated that you would need a 40% raise to offset the added misery of a one-hour commute.

Use money to buy yourself better time, says Prof. Dunn. Don't buy a slightly fancier car so that you have heated seats during your two-hour commute. Buy a place close to work, so that you can use that final hour of daylight to kick a ball around in the park with your kids.

Another way to buy yourself time, Prof. Dunn says, is by outsourcing tasks you dislike. Whereas hiring personal assistants used to be the preserve of the wealthy, it is now easier and more affordable to hire freelancers and virtual assistants online to help you with either regular administration or just individual tasks.

She's currently doing research on how people actually spend the time they save by outsourcing tasks and whether it makes them happier. The preliminary findings, she says, are that most people do become happier by buying time for themselves, but only if they use the time in the right way.

Our hypothesis is that people will be much more likely to derive an emotional benefit if they think of it as windfall time and use it to do something good, rather than just taking it for granted, she says.

But while buying time is a good idea, putting a dollar value on your time may not be. In another piece of research in progress, Prof. Dunn is finding that when people think of their time as money, it makes them less likely to spend even small amounts of time on things that are not financially compensated. Seeing time as money may have a number of destructive consequences, she says.

Money Only Brings Happiness Up to a Point

When looking at all of these research results, there's an important caveat to bear in mind. Those in the field divide happiness into two components, and you need to have both parts working together to be truly happy. But only one of those components keeps improving the more you earn. The other tops out after a certain point.

The first measure of happiness is evaluative. Prof. Lyubomirsky defines it as a sense that your life is good, you're satisfied with your life, you're progressing towards your life goals.That's the measure used by economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, who have conducted extensive research comparing economic data and happiness surveys across the world. We found very clear evidence that in just about every country around the world, rich people are happier than poor people,says Prof. Wolfers. And people in rich countries are happier than people in poor countries.

The other component of happiness affective looks at how often you experience positive emotions like joy, affection, and tranquility, as opposed to negative ones, explains Prof. Lyubomirsky. You could be satisfied with your life overall but you may not actually be happy at the time, she says. Of course, happy people experience negative emotions, just not as often. So you have to have both components.

Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton of Princeton University found that when they looked at affective measures, happiness did not rise after a household reached an annual income of approximately $75,000. (They did, however, find a consistent rise in overall life satisfaction, matching the results of Profs. Wolfers and Stevenson.)

The bottom line: When you don't have much money, a little extra can go a long way, because you have more essential needs to fulfill. As you accumulate more wealth, however, it becomes more difficult to keep buying more happiness.

Don't Get in Over Your Head

Finally, although much of the research in this field is on spending money rather than saving it, the researchers agree that spending more than you can afford is a route to misery. Taking care of your basic needs and achieving a level of financial security is important.

Prof. Gilovich says that although his research shows that life experiences give more happiness than material goods, people should of course buy the essentials first. His findings hold true across a broad range of income levels and demographic groups, but not for people with very low incomes. Those people don't really have discretionary income; it pretty much all has to go on necessities, he says.

Some studies, meanwhile, have shown that debt has a detrimental effect on happiness, while savings and financial security tend to boost it. A survey of British households found that those with higher levels of debt reported lower happiness, and a separate piece of research on married couples showed that those in more debt had more marital conflict.

Savings are good for happiness; debt is bad for happiness. But debt is more potently bad than savings are good, Prof. Dunn says. From a happiness perspective, its more important to get rid of debt than to build savings.

So before you go out and spend all your money on a dream vacation, make sure you've taken care of the basics, paid off your debts, and have enough money to shield yourself from the worst of life's troubles.

Financial advisers are actually right, Prof. Howell says. The first thing you should be doing with your money is building up a safety net. If you go into debt to buy these great life experiences, the stress you'll feel when the credit card bill comes in will probably wipe out the good that you got from the experience.

Mr. Blackman is a writer in Crete. He can be reached at [email protected].

limehedgehog555

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA*

Steven, a junior at Northeast State, just started working part-time at a local fast food restaurant chain. Although not his dream job, it paid for tuition and books, and the restaurant gave him the flexible schedule he needed for school. After a few months, Steven found he got along well with all of his coworkers, but it was apparent they did not respect the company or the management. The employees made fun of their bosses and treated the work area like a playground. In some respects, Steven thought it was a fun environment to work in, especially after hours when management was gone for the day. They played their music loudly, laughed, and talked with one another during the down times instead of cleaning up their work areas like they were supposed to. Despite the fact there were ethical policies telling employees how they were expected to act in the workplace, these policies never seemed to be enforced. One day, while working with his coworker Julie on the food assembly table, Steven saw Julie accidentally drop a meat patty on the floor. Without so much as a flinch, she bent down, picked up the patty, stuck it back on the bun, and wrapped it up. It happened so fast that Steven wasnât even sure he had seen rightâespecially since Julie had done it so casually. Steven watched in dismay as another worker took the hamburger out to the customer. Over the next few weeks, Steven saw others, including the shift supervisor, do the same thing with burgers and other products. Once, an entire cheeseburger hit the greasy floor, was picked up, and was taken to the customer. This time the customer complained the burger tasted funny and sent it back. Steven noticed other unsanitary practices such as employees not washing their hands between handling meat and vegetables and not washing utensils between uses. Obviously, such practices were against company policies and, if reported, the supervisors in charge could get in trouble and the restaurant would face investigations from the health department. However, there was ample opportunity for things like this to occur. There was no one watching them, and the shift supervisor also engaged in these activities. Steven felt it was the companyâs responsibility to hire good people, so they were to blame if these things happened. One day, Steven approached Julie and asked, âWhy do so many people here serve food that has fallen on the floor to customers?â Julie thought about it briefly as though she had never considered it before and replied, âI guess itâs because it would take too much time to get another beef patty out of the freezer, cook it, and serve it to the customer. This is a fast food restaurant, after all, and Iâm not interested in hearing customers complain about the time it takes for them to get their food. Besides, the restaurants with the fastest service get a bonus from corporate headquarters. Last year the supervisors rewarded us with some extra money for doing our jobs so quickly.â Steven was somewhat taken aback by the honest reply and asked, âWouldnât you be disgusted if you were served dirty food at a restaurant?â This time Julieâs response was quick. She said, âWhat I donât know wonât hurt me.â She walked off. Several weeks went by and the same practices continued. Steven became more and more concerned about the consequences that could happen in an environment so laid back and unconcerned about safety and health. It seemed like the more time that passed, the worse everyoneâs attitude became. One day, at the beginning of his shift, Steven noticed the walk-in freezer had been left open. As he went to shut the door, he discovered a smell of rotten meat. It almost made him vomit. âHow could this happen?â he wondered. He threw away the rotten meat without asking anyone because he was afraid of what the answer might be. After Steven threw out the spoiled meat, he began to wonder how the culture of the restaurant got to the point of supporting such practices. He realized the seemingly minor unsanitary practices allowed major issues to arise that could possibly hurt someone. Steven felt he should say or do something, but to whom? He sat down and pondered what he should do.

QUESTIONS | EXERCISES

1. Describe the nature of the organizational culture in the restaurant. What kind of opportunities are there for unethical behavior to occur? Are there any opportunities for ethical behavior?

2. What are some of the incentives employees might have to engage in this type of behavior?

3. If the organizational culture of the restaurant does not change, what are some likely outcomes and consequences?

SLAVIC 210 Chapter Notes - Chapter BK Book 8: Fenya

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

SLAVIC 210 Chapter Notes - Chapter Book XII: Frock Coat, List Of K.O.3An Guo Characters, Mortar And Pestle

SLAVIC 210 Chapter BK Book 12: 2 - Dangerous Witnesses

SLAVIC 210 Chapter Notes - Chapter BK Book 9: Mortar And Pestle

Related Questions