Research Paper Presentations

I thought all the presentations were executed well. It did differ for some people, because some had more time to prepare than others. I was somewhat surprised that there are about 4 or 5 people doing their papers on how doctors and their patient’s communication; and the more intriguing part is that they all show different views on how to go about to treat the linguistic issue at hand. I believe that the most interesting paper will be the one on Artificial Intelligence and how language computes into that issue, because well who does not find Artificial Intelligence interesting? And plus it is the only distinct topic from everyone else in the class. I also like the last speech on Monday about accounting. I found it interesting how people lose millions of dollars for the first 3 or 4 years, before they start to make money. I also learned that visual aids are key to presentations and they helped a lot. Eric had a good demonstration on the chalkboard with the chicken, the accounting information sheet I just talked about, how one drew how A.I. operated on the chalkboard, and how the hostage negotiation steps worked. Those are the ones I found myself more interested in than the others who just talked the whole time I felt as if the papers dealing with political science said the same thing everytime. That is probably because I am not big fan of politics and it all seems rather annoying to me. I think that presentations being enforced before the final paper or rough draft is due is very helpful, because it helps one organize his/her paper more and shows them what they need to include or exclude from their final draft. These speeches can also help others within the class if they had the same topic, because someone else research can tie in with yours that would perhaps help you get your arguments and points across more precisely.

Communication between doctor-patient relationship

The doctor-patient relationship is important to the practice of medicine and essential for the delivery of care in the diagnosis and treatment. This relationship always depended on the communication between them. Communication is essential for people to express their needs and desires properly to other people. Medical practitioners, especially doctors, should be able to communicate with their patients in order to indicate their diagnosis and concerns to them rather clearly. In this paper, I am going to discuss counterarguments on improving the communication of doctor-patient relationships: either by adding humanities classes to pre-med students or building a relationship of trust between the doctor and his patient.

Several scholars have noticed that doctor’s communication needs improvement, and believe that this needs to be taken care of during their medicinal training in graduate school. C.M. Gills believes that Medicine and Humanities are tied together and that humanities should be taught more in order to help the doctor get on their patients level better. The humanities thus contribute to the young physician what Dr. Micco called “critical abilities, flexibility of perspective,...ethical values, empathy and selfknowledge” (Gills 7). Gills is agreeing with Micco’s point that if we teach humanities more to practicing doctors then they will be able to be more flexible with their practice and comprehend more what the patients are saying; and by making them more understanding people, they will become more effective physicians. Because patients are not just going to hand you the organ that hurts, so it will be a little tougher to fully understand the full measure of the treatment needed coming from an inexperienced patient. Additionally, the media has been prone to helping physicians easily connect the means and the ends. Several big time newspapers, like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, claim that medical schools are beginning to tell their students to look for answers in novels, theatres, paintings, and dance. They have reported a study that by looking at paintings and sculptures, it can heighten the student’s observational abilities; and with these heightened abilities, a doctor will be able to ask the necessary questions to the patients to make a correct diagnosis without relying too much on blood and x-rays. One of my father’s friends Dr. Katz, in New York, believes that it is more important before becoming a full-out physician to develop a way to interpret the patient’s explanation of his symptoms. He believes that another class is necessary for students to take in order relate to their students more.

Other people believe that it depends upon the doctor and his approach to the patient. There are three common approaches that the doctor takes: paternalistic, informed, and shared (Charles). Doctors, who use the paternalistic approach, unlikely have much interest in discussing patient concerns. They like to hear their patient’s symptoms very quickly so that he can come up with a diagnosis ignoring the patient’s concerns. The informed approach occurs when the patient takes a more active role in the treatment making decision. The doctor does not have much say in giving a treatment; however, he does help the patient by giving him relevant information in order for the patient to make a decision. I do not personally believe that this is the best way for doctors to go about their work. They are the ones who went to school for many years learning how to find out your illness and treat it in the best, safest way possible. I believe that the best of these three is the final one, the shared approach. The doctors commit themselves to finding a treatment that works with the patient’s concerns. The doctors allow the patient to describe their agendas and from that the doctors try to find a cure most suitable to the patients. This allows the patient to feel comfortable and build some trust for his doctor. My father is an endocrinologist in Memphis and he believes that building a solid relationship with the patients is the best way to relate to your patients. When they communicate, it is not awkward at all and the patients feel more relaxed. It is also more psychologically relaxing for the patient, because he feels that he knows his doctor is trying his best to help him in every way possible.

Several medical schools believe to teach their students early how to talk to their patients so that their relationship improves and that one is able to make the correct diagnosis. I believe that taking the classes would be most benefit to most doctors throughout the world because not every doctor sees the same patient over and over again, so therefore, why would he need to develop a very solid relationship with his patient. If he were easily able to understand what the patient is saying and find a diagnosis, then that is all that matters. The whole point of people going to the doctors is get better and not to make friends.

Research Paper

My paper is about examining the communication doctors and their patients, and how to improve this relationship. The most common perception shared by doctors is to "dumbdown" to the patients level, because no patients, not having any history in medicine, will be understand the doctors at all. My father is an endocrinologist and he claims that he speaks very differently to his patients that he does with his patients. Every little word and tone its given in affects the patients behavior and how his feelings. Abel says that if a doctor were to increase the frequency of sounds associated with lightness and fastness, the patient seemed to be able to cope with their illness and handle it well because it does not seem bad. And if doctors were to use smaller medical terms than long ones, patients would feel more comfortable and not as worried that they are about to die.
Other doctors believe that grad students should take more humanities classes in order to be able to talk to patients easier, and being able to get the point across. Bibliotherapy has come up alot through my research. It basically means therapy through books. This deals with people just reading to help out so they talk more fluidly so other people (like their patients) can understand them better. Dysart believes that bibliotherapy is believed to negotiate the space between medicine and the patient's lifeworld. Several editorials give evidence by showing the patients view of the doctor and vice versa. Charles believe that patients feel overriden and overpowered many times by doctor, which obviously makes the patient feel insecure and worried. Doctors need only to find a middle ground with the patients so that everyone feels good. My father claims that the patient should have trust in their doctors and everything handles better.

Final paper #2

Words and its definitions have been constantly changing since the beginning of the English Language. Some jump back and forth between definitions over time and many have dual meaning that are still debated or misunderstood to this day. I believe that people are the cause for the misperception of certain words causing them to change meanings. Most debated words are ones that can be offensive if taken in the negative connotation. I believe that these changes or misperceptions of the definition certain word indicates negative things about our language and our culture as a whole. ‘Gay’ is a word that I find to be misperceived in a bad way. I, however, do not find it offensive at all. It goes by what the definition says it is in the dictionary and if people can not handle that then that is their problem.

The word ‘gay’ has two common definitions ever since it was introduced in the English Language. It first appeared around 1425 used as an adjective meaning: of persons, their attributes and actions, full of or dispersed to joy and mirth, manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth, light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, and merry: “A lay Of love..made hire herte fressh and gay” (OED). Clearly at first there was no derogatory use of this word in anyway. The first rather negative definition of the word occurred around the 1930s when it meant a homosexual. I believe that this definition originated from the first, because gay men are viewed as being more lively and cheerful than straight men. Still, this definition is just a noun and I think it is the same as saying a whale is a mammal. It is just another term for the word and not as specific.

Gay began to be used as a verb around 1950 and it meant to make gay, to give a bright and pleasant look to, or to embellish. Again, nothing came to my attention that this word should be debated or misunderstood as anything negative. The first real bad use of this word occurred around 1978 when it meant foolish, stupid, socially disapproving like “That is gay.” However, this was used in slang English. Nowadays, it has become very popular and used in everyday conversation. The two main definitions people apply with the word gay these days are foolish, stupid and homosexual. Personally, I believe that this word should stick to its original two meanings and leave the slang one out, because the newest definition is what I believe started the word being used in a nugatory way.

In order for me to have found out what people thought whether this word was derogatory or not was to survey several of my friends. Out of the 25 I questioned, 13 thought it was always used as a derogatory term, 7 did not believe so, and only 5 believed that it depended upon the context of the word. The 5 believed that it was not negative when it meant something of a homosexual-like nature; however, they did believe it was derogatory when it meant that someone was stupid or socially disapproving. From these surveys, I firmly believe that it depends upon the individual and how he approaches the meaning of the word. In my case, I do not find it offensive in anyway. When people tell me that I am gay, I do not mind it at all because I find it a foolish thing to call someone. Whenever any of my friends use it, it usually is a joke and never hurts anyone at all. People tend to just brush it to the side and forget it ever happened.

I believe that this word started to be offensive because of the media, including movies and TV shows. Even though I see the word used as a joke, it still offends people in certain ways.

However, several people that are gay do take this in a derogatory sense. I find that those that are comfortable with their sexuality do not mind being called gay; however, those who are not as comfortable with their sexuality take this offensively, because they feel as if they are being looked down upon from society. People that have low self-esteems, homosexual or not, can take the word as being demeaning as well. No one likes to be called dumb or stupid to their face, so it is not hard to believe that certain individuals take offense to this word.

Though I believe that this is not a derogatory term, I think that it gives a negative view about our language and culture. First of all, gay has no definitive derogatory term in the Websters dictionary so why should it be taken in that way, however many words in the dictionary have been altered to mean something offensive; therefore, I still believe it depends on the individual’s status or view in life on how one approaches the word to be offensive or not. But many native English speaking people nowadays have made this out to be hurtful to other people. I still can not comprehend how the definition of the word started out to mean lively, cheerful, and exuberant to being foolish and idiotic. Language is known as the foundation of culture, and with people turning words from its original meaning to a more condescending meaning, it is not hard to believe why people view our culture as being demeaning and violent in the eyes of foreign and domestic people.

English Paper 2

Words and its definitions have been constantly changing since the beginning of the English Language. Some jump back and forth between definitions over time and many have dual meaning that are still debated or misunderstood till this day. I believe that people are the cause for the misperception of certain words and their definitions. Most debated words are ones that can be offensive if taken in the negative connotation. I believe that these changes or misperceptions of the definition certain word indicates negative things about our language and our culture as a whole. ‘Gay’ is a word that I find to be misperceived in a bad way. I, however, do not find it offensive at all. It goes by what the definition says it is in the dictionary and if people can not handle that then that is their problem.

The word ‘gay’ has two common definitions ever since it was introduced in the English Language. It first appeared around 1310 used as an adjective meaning: of persons, their attributes and actions, full of or dispersed to joy and mirth, manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth, light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, and merry. Clearly at first there was no derogatory use of this word in anyway. The first rather negative definition of the word occurred around the 1930s when it meant a homosexual. Still, this definition is just a noun and I think it is the same as saying a whale is a mammal. It is just another term for the word and not as specific. Gay began to be used as a verb around 1950 and it meant to make gay, to give a bright and pleasant look to, or to embellish. Again, nothing came to my attention that this word should be debated or misunderstood as anything negative. The first real bad use of this word occurred around 1978 when it meant foolish, stupid, socially disapproving. However, this was used in slang English. Nowadays, it has become very popular and used in everyday conversation. The two main definitions people apply with the word gay these days are foolish, stupid and homosexual. Personally, I believe that this word should stick to its original two meanings and leave the slang one out, because that is what I believe started the misconception of the word to begin with.

In order for me to have found out what people thought whether this word was derogatory or not was to survey several of my friends. Out of the 25 I questioned, 13 thought it was always used as a derogatory term, 7 did not believe so, and only 5 believed that it depended upon the context of the word. The 5 believed that it was not negative when it meant something of a homosexual-like nature; however, they did believe it was derogatory when it meant that someone was stupid or socially disapproving. Because of these numbers and surveys, I firmly believe that it depends upon the individual and how he approaches the meaning of the word. In my case, I do not find it offensive in anyway. When people tell me that I am gay, I do not mind it at all because I find it a foolish thing to call someone. Whenever any of my friends use it, it usually is a joke and never hurts anyone at all. People tend to just brush it to the side and forget it ever happened.


Though I believe that this is not a derogatory term, I think that it gives a negative view about our language and culture. First of all, gay has no definitive derogatory term in the Websters dictionary so why should it be taken in that way. But many native English speaking people nowadays have made this out to be hurtful to other people. I still can not comprehend how the definition of the word started out to mean lively, cheerful, and exuberant to being foolish and idiotic. This change in definition over time proves to me that our culture can be seen as debasing and demeaning to people. Our culture has always been viewed as angry and violent by others, and I believe that it all began with our diction and that this one word is one bit of evidence to prove it.

"Macho"

I am surprised to have read another article in About Language that I completely disagree with in back to back weeks. Castillo Guilbault's "Americanization is Tough on 'Macho'" indicates that macho in Spanish means admiration and respect for another person. However, Americans apparently have distorted the word to the point that it means something completely different. I wish I knew when this was written, because in these present days I have not met one person, American or foreign, who believes that macho means something else that big, physical brute strength. Of all my time in France and other countries, they always express the word by shrugging their shoulders up high acting really big and tough. I also have Spanish friends. Therefore, that is also why I have trouble agreeing with how she viewed the Spanish definition of macho.
When I think of the word macho, I think of the world's strongest man competitions or just a really big, jacked guy. I do not think of it describing someone's work ethic or their personality unlike Guilbault does. Macho is defined in the dictionary as assertive or aggressive manliness, having or characterized by qualities considered manly, or an assertively virile, dominating, or domineering male. All of these definitions are about a man and nothing about being hard-working or responsible. I looked up macho in a Spanish dictionary and it also contradicts Guilbault's view on the word. In Spanish it seems more demeaning to men because one of the examples is a man is macho if he beats his wife and daughters. It also says that it means a tough guy. This is why i can not agree with Guilbault in anyway. Most people in the United States believe macho means a very tough guy and according to the Spanish Dictionary it means the same thing. Personally, I find it neutral and not offensive at all.

Dumbest article ever

Robert Klose's A Rarity: Grammar Lessons from Dad is probably the dumbest article i have ever heard. Klose is basically completely saying that schools are making children dumb and not teaching them proper English. As if he knew everything about English, he is a biology teacher for Gods sake. He might be able to point out the obvious that everyone learns when they are in middle school and thats it. I guarantee if he were to try to compose an essay on anything he wanted to write and turned it in to a high school English teacher, he would fail it or not get as good a grade as he expects. First of all, I really do not believe that the only thing his ex-student said to him was " It was, like, whoa," and never said anything else after that unless that student were retarded. Even in that case, I am sure a retarded person would try to elaborate and explain the cool monuments he or she saw. I think Klose should try to imagine how his child was to talk if his child would not have gone to school at all to learn English. I am sure he would have gone crazy when hearing his children talk after that scenario. Honestly who congratulates their son after saying a correct sentence? "Good adjective use their son, I am very proud of you," if my dad were to talk to me like that I would probably just stare at him as if he were (not was because it is subjunctive, woah) a fool. And if his son does not know what a sentence is comprised of then I think Klose should probably get his son out of that school and move him somehwere where people actually teach. Klose is an ignoramus and I really despise his writing. When I finished this reading, I was, like, woah!