How to Format a SAT Essay Sample

How to Format a SAT Essay SampleThe SAT essay sample is a way to get an idea of how SAT essay will be assessed. In addition, it can help you prepare your essay for this type of test. The essay should be well structured and complete with the right formatting.You can gain some important information about the different ways that SAT test-takers can format their essays. For example, some essays include the use of footnotes. It may be helpful to review the SAT essay sample analysis to know the best ways to use these types of footnotes.The first way to format an SAT essay sample is by using the traditional essay format. These are considered traditional essays because they include typical formatting. A standard SAT essay typically consists of a main body, three or four 'sections,' and a conclusion. Sections are necessary to explain how you are addressing each part of the essay in terms of that part.Since sections are essential to the essay, it is very common for an essay to include five sec tions. Some essays also use 'titles' or headers.Students will also find that it is helpful to break up the essay into different chapters and even sub-chapters. This will allow them to research information for each chapter separately and then add the material to the summary.The second way to format an SAT essay sample is by using only one or two paragraphs. It is best to avoid using more than one paragraph. In addition, avoiding paragraph structure does not mean the use of longer paragraphs.The third way to format an SAT essay sample is by writing in one of the styles of the APA format. This includes either paragraph or first-person narrative. Writing in this style will ensure that thetest-taker is able to write in a clear and organized manner.Finally, a final method to format a SAT essay sample is by using two or three sentences. When writing sentences, remember to avoid using unnecessary or redundant words and clauses.

Kohut and Self Psychology and the Freudian Classical Model

Abstract This essay compares and contrasts Freud’s classical model of personality with the theory of self psychology devised by Heinz Kohut. Each theory proposes a different understanding of the nature of the human personality in regards to how it is formed and the extent to which it can adapt to its environment during the formative childhood years.Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on Kohut and Self Psychology and the Freudian Classical Model specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Freud’s classical theory of personality promoted a notion of human personality as static, predetermined, and unchanging entity which an individual remained powerless to affect whether positively or negatively. Kohut’s theory of self psychology by contrast returned human agency to the theory of personality and promoted a more dynamic interplay between the individual and his or her environment. This essay compares and cont rasts Freud’s classical model of personality with the theory of self psychology devised by Heinz Kohut. For the purposes of this comparison, personality will be defined as any and all significant and reasonably constant behavioral elements exhibited and repeated in an individual human being (Ewen 4). Each theory proposes a different understanding of the nature of the human personality in regards to how it is formed and the extent to which it can adapt to its environment during the formative childhood years. Freud posited that human personality formed within the first five years of life and could be divided into three strata: the Id, the Ego and the Superego (Ewen 2003). An individual is born with his or her Id, best characterized as an â€Å"entirely unconscious† entity possessing the sole motivation to have its physical needs met and avoid pain (Ewen 2003). The Ego arrives at approximately six months of age and represents the social face of the Id; Ego functions as a mediator between Id’s desires and â€Å"the reality principle, delaying pleasure until a suitable and safe object has been found† (Ewen 2003). The final member of the personality triumvirate the Superego forms between three and five years of age to moderate parental influence, conscious and unconscious desires, and â€Å"standards of right and wrong† (Ewen 2003). Kohut’s self psychology theory of personality denied the principal tenet of inherent sexual and aggressive forces (Kohut 1996). Self psychology launched the earliest psychoanalytic recognition of the importance of empathy in personality (Kohut 1996). Kohut (1996) focused attention on expanding the therapist’s role to practice relating empathically to the patient (Kohut 1996).Advertising Looking for term paper on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Healthy development of personality was fluid and changeable, Kohut (1996) asser ted, particularly in the realm of â€Å"selfobject experiences;† mutually beneficial experiences with other personalities nurtured the self and contributed to a positive view of the self, and greater self-esteem in the patient (Kohut 1996). â€Å"Healthy narcissism† refers to a robust, ambitious and integrated self that aspires toward full self actualization as well as the fulfillment of proficiencies and talents (Kohut 1996). â€Å"Narcissism† by contrast indicates the presence of a powerless self striving to preserve a false self unity and self worth through destructive channels (Kohut 1996). Teicholtz (1999) argued â€Å"from the viewpoint of†¦feminist and postmodern critics† that Freud’s theory was essentially a dinosaur of â€Å"male supremacy†¦heterosexist views, and†¦derivative emphasis on reproductive sexuality† (Teicholtz 1999). Teicholtz (1999) asserted that Freud’s theory of personality was best â€Å"unders tood as having been multiply determined by a mix of the intellectual/sociopolitical climate of his times, the limiting effects of his personal subjectivity, certain unanalyzed aspects of his childhood misperceptions, and defensive unconscious fantasy† (Teicholtz 1999). Kohut’s theory of self psychology, Teicholtz (1999) states, â€Å"can be seen as [an] important waystation†¦between classical and postmodern theories† (Teicholtz 1999). Kohut championed the value of the â€Å"belief in the possibility of psychic order and coherence on the basis of certain kinds of relationships available to the individual during childhood† while simultaneously letting go of Freud’s rigid interpretation of â€Å"biological determinism† (Teicholtz 1999). Kohut reformulated Freud’s concept of the instinctual aggressive drive and characterized it as more of a social construction than a predetermined unconscious response (Kohut 1996). Aggressive response s resemble â€Å"preformed action patterns† that are â€Å"learned with greater ease than other action patterns† (Kohut 1996). Said drives then were better described as a â€Å"biological and psychobiological readiness to express oneself aggressively† (Kohut 1996). Given that â€Å"certain patterns are more easily mobilized than others,† Kohut argued that the â€Å"drive in and of itself is neutral. You cannot say from the drive whether it is destructive in its social implications or constructive† (Kohut 1996).Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on Kohut and Self Psychology and the Freudian Classical Model specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Kohut essentially asserted that the aggressive response drew meaning exclusively from its context, and not from an iron clad, consistently destructive biological instinct that gave no agency to its human host. Teicholtz (1999) characterizes Koh ut’s theory of self psychology as a bridging theory, and one that extended Frued’s theory into the 21st century Teicholtz (1999). â€Å"Kohut’s self psychology was an answer to what he felt were the limitations of Freud’s drive theory. Where Freud saw sexual and aggressive instincts as the driving force of development, Kohut saw the need for a coherent and continuous sense of the self† (Teicholtz 1999). Another area of contrast between the two theorists lay in their understanding of the higher emotions. Freud characterized the fruits of humanity – love for instance – as rewards for a healthy development of personality, yet in Freud’s mind these rewards only arrived once the individual had sublimated his true instincts, and so functioned as â€Å"derivatives of the instincts† (Teicholtz 1999). Kohut, by contrast, saw the capacity for and the realization of love as direct extensions of the â€Å"nondrive aspects of selfâ €  (Teicholtz 1999). Kohut preferred to characterize human personality as a potential, a perennial bloom that could be influenced positively by his or her environment. Teicholtz (1999) showed that Kohut’s self psychology focused more on the whole human than separate and distinct parts (Teicholtz 1999). In conclusion, Freud’s classical theory of personality promoted a notion of human personality as a static, predetermined, and unchanging entity which an individual remained powerless to affect, whether positively or negatively. Kohut’s theory of self psychology by contrast returned human agency to the theory of personality and promoted a more dynamic interplay between the individual and his or her environment. References Ewen, R.B. (2003). An introduction to theories of personality (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kohut, H. (1996). Heinz Kohut: The Chicago institute lectures. P. Tolpin M. Tolpin, (Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.Adv ertising Looking for term paper on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Teicholtz, J.G. (1999). Kohut, Loewald and the postmoderns: A comparative study of self and relationship. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. This term paper on Kohut and Self Psychology and the Freudian Classical Model was written and submitted by user Corban Cooley to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Lord Of Flies Essays (3711 words) - Fiction, Literature,

Lord Of Flies In his classic novel, Lord of the Flies, William Golding utilizes many elements of symbolism to help accomplish his motif, which is "man is basically evil." Symbolism can be anything, a person, place or thing, used to portray something beyond itself. It is used to represent or foreshadow the conclusion of the story. As one reads this novel, he or she will begin to recognize the way basic civilization is slowly stripped away from the boys. Let us know look closer at the ways Golding uses this form of symbolism. From the very beginning of the story the boys inwardly strip themselves of the remnants of the basic civilized world. This is shown when the boys shed their clothes; their school sweaters, then the rest of their clothes are torn off. Their hair becomes increasingly disheveled, long, and entangled with small twigs. Since the boys are left without any adult supervision they have to turn to their collective unconscious. The collective unconscious was discovered by the renown psychologist Carl Jung. Let us now look further into each individual character in the novel, and discover how they each contribute to portray the ending of the story. Ralph is one of the older boys on the island and remains the leader throughout most of the novel. He is described as a pure, English lad. Such details as his fair hair and the fact that he is wearing his school sweater symbolizes many things. First of all the fact that he has fair hair represents that he will be the positive force throughout the novel, as opposed to Jack who is described as having red hair. The fact that he keeps his school sweater symbolizes his desire to keep the island somewhat civilized. He does everything he can to keep the boys under some kind of society. He makes laws including the freedom of speech. Ralph becomes very popular in the beginning, however as the novel proceeds and the society deteriorates, the popular leader is abandoned for a strong-armed dictator; Jack Merridew. The impression that we have of Jack is that he is a tall thin boy with a shock of red hair at the summit of a black cloak. Jacks appearance seems to suggest evil. Unlike Ralph who stands for common sense and a desire for normal civilized life, all Jack cares about is hunting. Because of this opposition between Jack and Ralph, Jack is Ralph's main antagonist. Symbolically Jack breaks away from good when he baptizes himself with the blood of the slaughtered pig. Jack eventually breaks away from Ralph and the others and forms his own group which will basically strive for blood. This leads to multiple murders. With the exception of Ralph, Piggy, and a few others, Jack lures the other boys to join him. According to the laws of Freudian Psychology Jacks Id has taken over. Another character portrayed in Lord of the Flies is Piggy. Piggy is the object of much mockery and is obviously a fat boy. Piggy foresees both the need for a closely watched signal fire and for secure shelters on the beach. Piggys spectacles are used to start the fire. Piggy could represent knowledge or intelligence, a figure which is often depicted as a fire-bringer. A familiar expression that can represent this is the fire of inspiration. Even though Piggy represented all good he was often jeered at. Simon is a Christ figure. He is quiet, almost unnoticed, yet he speaks wiser than the others. His wander deep into the heart of the woods in chapter three, is representative of Jesus' journey's to isolate himself to pray to his Father. As we can clearly see, William Golding has used much symbolism to help portray the ending of the novel, Lord of the Flies. A running theme in Lord of the Flies is that man is savage at heart, always ultimately reverting back to an evil and primitive nature. The cycle of man's rise to power, or righteousness, and his inevitable fall from grace is an important point that book proves again and again, often comparing man with characters from the Bible to give a more vivid picture of his descent. Lord Of The Flies symbolizes this fall in different manners, ranging from the illustration of the mentality of actual primitive man to the reflections of a corrupt seaman in purgatory. The novel is the story of a group of boys of different backgrounds who are marooned on an unknown island when their plane crashes. As the boys