1.12: Importance of Various (Kinds of) Satisfactions
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
Learning Objectives
- Explain at least three different senses of what it means for something to be important in or for a relationship.
Watch this
video
or scan the QR code to learn some skills for healthy romantic relationships.
The question may arise as to whether certain (types of) satisfactions may be more important than others. For example, is it more important to have a good sexual relationship or to have a good intellectual relationship?
This question has three different senses. It asks (sense 1), are there some (kinds of) satisfactions that are (ethically) better than others for the people involved, or (sense 2) are there some (kinds of) satisfactions that make a relationship more enjoyable or happier than other (kinds of) satisfactions. It also asks (sense 3) whether there are some (kinds of) satisfactions that make the relationship more likely to continue in the same manner it is now, fade and perhaps be less loving, or grow better and perhaps be more loving; whether there are some that might make it more likely to fail or grow stronger, more likely to end or endure.
I will leave the answer to sense 3 for sociologists to determine, for they, if anyone, would be the ones to discover in some sort of scientific fact-finding manner what sorts of joys (and/or dissatisfactions) in what sorts of relationships between what sorts of people correlate with what sort of changes that take place in those relationships. That is, if there are any such correlations. It is primarily (but not totally) an empirical matter to determine which personal traits and relationship characteristics, if any, correlate with long-time satisfaction in relationships.
With regard to sense 1, I will point out in the chapter on ethics what some of the things are which I think are necessary or important for a good life. Anything in a relationship that helps people attain these things will then be what I consider more important in this sense.
In this chapter, I wish to discuss sense 2, the question of which joys, if any, might be more enjoyable or more essential for happiness than others.
First, Some Cases:
When you are driving alone at night on a superhighway, it can be a very lonely experience, with cars zooming by you or you zooming by other cars without you or their occupants acknowledging each other. Some people do not even bother to put on turn signals when they change lanes to pass you and then cut back in. But quite often, after a time of this, someone you may not even be able to see very well, if at all, might drive along with you, signal appropriately, slow down or speed up just enough to be sure you and they can continue driving together. Of course, with CB radios there may be further communication, but I am talking of even the simplest case without such verbal contact. Such a meeting on a long drive can be a very heartwarming thing, and when one of you finally exits the highway, you might wave or flashlights at each other to say goodbye, never to knowingly cross paths again. On a short drive or on a busy freeway with most drivers driving courteously and well, one would probably not even notice some other particular driver that drove courteously even in prolonged proximity.
When you are hungry, you feel like eating, and certain foods may be quite satisfying. When you are not hungry, neither food nor the thought of food may be very satisfying. When you are nauseated, it may be downright unpleasant.
Sex or the thought of sex may be very pleasant at some times and not pleasant at all at other times. Sex and food are not too different in this regard; when you are fully satisfied by either, the thought of more of it is not always pleasurable. Likewise, when you are distinctly not in the mood or the right condition, the idea of either might be quite unpleasant. Once at the beginning of one of those 48-hour stomach flu bouts, I just barely was able to drive back 200 miles from a weekend with my parents to my college apartment that I shared with three other fellows. I was suffering from all sorts of chills and nausea. I felt like I wanted to throw up but I seemed unable to, and I was not about to force it. I knew I needed some aspirin, but the thought of trying to swallow and retain aspirin was itself sickening. I wanted to sleep but was too chilled and too sick to my stomach. My roommates were having a party that night, which luckily I was able to completely ignore. I went to bed, in heavy pajamas and a robe, and under twelve thousand blankets. Still, I lay there freezing and shivering. One of my roommates came in to see how I was. After I told him, he jokingly (I hope) said, “What you need in there is a nice, warm girl. Let me just go out to the party and see if I can find you one; then I’ll just bring her back to snuggle up in there with you.” Well, the very thought of such a thing made me so sick that I was able to lose my supper and my nausea in the bathroom simultaneously and immediately. I then took my two aspirins, finally started to warm up, went to sleep, alone, and felt not too terrible the next day. At least I no longer felt both about to die and afraid I might not. Sex and sickness don’t always mix. (A get well card I saw once said, “People sick in the hospital normally don’t keep trying to seduce their nurses — so either you are not sick or you are not normal.”)
In the Iliad of Homer, the protagonist Achilles quite clearly has the choice to fight in battle, be a hero, lead his troops to victory, and die in the process, or to quit the battlefield and go back to his homeland and be like a tender of sheep or woman at home while the “real” men of Greece fight, earn glory, and, in some cases, die at Troy. He makes the agonizing choice to fight though it will mean his death. Yet in the Odyssey when Odysseus talks to Achilles in the underworld, Achilles hates it there so much that he says he would rather be a manservant to the lowliest of men than to remain where he is.
Yet one gets the feeling that Achilles, if granted that option, would after a while no more wish to remain such a manservant than he had wished to come home and tend sheep in obscurity. The point of all this is the often forgotten, though hardly difficult, notion that under different conditions and circumstances, what people want, or find important (in sense 2) to make them happy or satisfied often varies with different circumstances, and/or with different moods.
Someone turning on their turn signal lights to signal a lane change may be hardly noticed most of the time; yet after long stretches on a lonely dark drive when no one else has courteously signaled, someone’s doing so may be very gratifying. Sex or food when you are in the mood might be super, otherwise sickening or simply not palatable.
In relationships, it is often the same way. What might be satisfying, desired, important, or very pleasant at one time or at one period in your life, may not be at another. To a teenager (or any insecure person) who feels unloved and inadequate, someone who simply likes them and perhaps likes to go out or make out with them might seem the most satisfying and important of people. But at some later stage in one’s life, where other problems or cares arise, that may not be very satisfying or important behavior at all. After a bad day at the office that makes you hostile and aggressive, an evening of knocking the hell out of a tennis ball may be the perfect thing, whereas on another night, going out to a quiet restaurant with nice quiet conversation may be the perfect evening for a quietly gratifying day.
Where I once worked as a photographer, one of the people in the business office became passionately interested all of a sudden in doing photography. He bought a camera and electronic flash and some various lenses, after reading all the photography magazines he could get hold of. He was shooting all kinds of color and black and white film to see what he liked best, constantly posing his wife and kids and in-laws, analyzing the results, reading more magazines, talking to me about his results, problems, etc. In short, he found photography very interesting, satisfying, and important to him. For birthday and holiday presents his wife and family started giving him photographic equipment — lenses and other various accessories and he was more than delighted with each one. Yet two months earlier, her giving him something like a tripod would have been a joke. He had no interest in photography whatsoever then. Photography, once not important to him, had suddenly become very important to him.
Just the other day I chided a friend (who is soon going to be divorced for the second time) for swearing that she is sure she will never ever want to marry again. I laughed at her and told her that she was old enough and wise enough to know that was probably an idle vow and that since she was an intelligent, beautiful, and caring person, undoubtedly she would someday in the not too distant future fall in love again and, being “certain” she was not making the same kind of mistakes she had in the past, she would want to be married, after she has been single long enough to learn to hate it as much as she now hates a marriage that has become untenable.
Some people go through their whole lives without their interests changing much; and what might be important and satisfying to them at age 16, like getting a new car, might also be their biggest thrill at age 56. Others, however, do change. And what might be satisfying or important at sixteen might seem unimportant or trivial at fifty. While my friend at the office is suddenly going berserk about photography, another acquaintance I know gave it up shortly after the birth of their second child, some twenty years ago. He had done lots of photography before getting married, then also took lots of pictures of his first child when she was very little.
But finally, he simply grows tired of it and moved into other areas of interest.  She claimed that it was more important to love than to be loved. I saw that it was important to love, but since I had spent all of high school in love with a girl to whom I was only a friend and since I found my freshman year at college a very lonely experience, loving someone else did not seem half as important as being loved. Unrequited love was not something I highly recommended to anyone. Just one year later I was disputing something with a roommate when I found myself concluding in the vehement argument that it was more important to love than to be loved. Suddenly I stopped talking, realizing I was now arguing against my own position of a year earlier and taking my former teacher’s side (my teacher had concluded our discussion by teasing that if I were not so young I would see her point and I had not been smart enough to tease back that if she were not so old she would see mine and now here I was a year older and she was right. Damn!). Had it not been 1:30 a.m. on a Sunday at the time, I think I would have telephoned my former teacher at home to tell her she had been right after all.
However, by the next morning, I came to my senses before seeing her and realized that we had both been right or half-right. At some times and for some people, it is more important to love, and at other times it is more important to be loved. For example, when you are demonstrably loved by someone whose affection you cannot honestly return and/or when you have gone a long time feeling no stirrings of passion and are starting to wonder if you are not jaded or partly dead, it might be more important to love than to be loved. When you are easily caring or loving toward others but feeling lonely or unloved in return, as I had been through high school or my freshman year at college, the opposite might be true. Sometimes both are equally important, finding someone to love and to be loved by. My teacher thanked me for my insight and for not sharing it with her at 1:30 by phone that morning. She also seemed pleased that a class discussion had meant enough to me for me to remember it.
In T he Philanderer , Shaw wrote “the fickleness of the women I love is only equaled by the infernal constancy of the women who love me” (Shaw, 1906).” If one loves or finds oneself attracted to others, but finds that feeling (love, attraction, or infatuation) unreturned, then being loved may be far more important than loving. But as in the kind of case mentioned in Harrison’s “Is Romance Dead?” and in my friend’s seeking the magic in a relationship, it sometimes happens that one needs to be able to find passion for another more than one needs to have another’s passion directed toward oneself. Francoise Duc La Rochefoucald’s maxim might appropriately describe such a time: “The pleasure of love is in loving. We are happier in the passion we feel than in what we excite” (cited in Roberts, 1940, p. 471). Then there is Byron’s: “He who loves, raves…but the cure is bitterer still” (cited in Roberts, 1940, p.466). Or to repeat, Bailey: I cannot love as I have loved, And yet I know not why; It is the one great woe of life, To feel all feeling die.
Certainly, the stirring of feelings toward another, feelings long thought dead and missed, can be a wonderful and important experience, whether love then is returned or not. I once wrote a woman to whom I was attracted for no good reason at all, and told her of my crush on her, making certain to say I neither expected nor really wanted it to come to anything but that I simply wanted her to know how exciting I found her and that it was a nice feeling for me to experience, particularly since “there were so few worthy objects of infatuation” around. I hope she took that in the right way and was pleased by it. I think it is nice to let someone know you feel affection for them if you can do it without making them feel you are making demands on them and if you do not embarrass them. Also, verbally expressing an infatuation can help prevent it from becoming an obsession. And though obsessions can themselves be bittersweet when feelings have long been missing and missed, generally obsessions are not fun.
Unrequited love or even unrequited desire may be too frustrating to bear at times; but being loved by those who excite no passion in you may be a bore or an embarrassment. And so each might find its complement equally important. (Or equally unimportant… when other concerns are of more immediate interest and consequence than loving or being loved.)
In the ethics chapter, I will mention some things that I think are important (ethical) values to have and/or to pursue. But in the areas of interest or joy or satisfaction, there are many things that are perhaps of equal ethical value, though of different satisfaction or importance at different times or to different people. As long as one leads a morally good life, it makes little difference which particular good (as opposed to destructive or evil) interests one finds fun or satisfying. Sharpening one’s physical skills at tennis or one’s creative skills at photography may be equally good if both are fun recreation for different people. So may be just sitting around relaxing, or any of hundreds of other harmless things people do for fun.
Of any activities which are equally good, that which is most important (sense 2) or most satisfying is what is most important (sense 2) to some particular individual at that time and under those circumstances. It is pointless to ask what activities are, or should be, most important (sense 2) or most satisfying in general.
Hence, one may play the violin as a child, hate it, give it up, then later take it up again and find it terribly satisfying. One may find sexual satisfaction an important value at one time in one’s life and not at another. One person may like sports better than intellectual activity; another, just the reverse. A third may like or dislike both equally. Even in sports, a person may find fencing more of a passion than swimming, hockey more exciting to watch than football, or running more fun to do than playing golf. Even more specifically, a golfer may love tournament golf and hate social golf. An intellect may love history but be bored by chemistry or psychology. Even in a given field, such as math, someone may like one specialty far more than another. In medicine, a doctor may love endocrinology and hate pediatrics. I like certain kinds of philosophy but not others. I am much more interested in certain areas of ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion than I am in higher theoretical kinds of symbolic logic; with an interest somewhere in between for metaphysics, theories of knowledge, and philosophy of language. And, even in the subjects I have interest in, I have almost no interest in certain kinds of works by Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, and others that other philosophers might appreciate a great deal.
Some general interests may outlive specific interests, though not always. For example, someone’s interest in sports, in general, may outlive their interest in playing basketball or even in spectating in basketball. Many men who grew up in basketball of a different era have lost interest in the kind of hectic, sometimes out of control, much faster-paced basketball of today. Many of them have turned to other sports to watch or to play for enjoyment, still finding excitement in seeing individuals or teams playing against each other in a contest of athletic skill where winning and losing and championships are important. Sometimes it works the other way around; a person with an interest in sports in general may grow weary of watching so many contests that have become to him a predictably tiresome, repetitive, indistinguishable blur and simply focus his athletic interests on playing tennis or golf for fun and watch matches and tournaments only in order to learn from them, not because he gets excited about competition.
Especially Significant or Meaningful Satisfactions
Now I think that even among areas that are personally important at a given time there are some areas for at least some people that are of very special importance or significance to them. These are what I refer to as particularly psychologically important or meaningful areas. These are areas of psychological importance as opposed to ethical importance because remember I am speaking here, as in this entire chapter, of areas of interest, in terms of their personal satisfaction, not in terms of their overall ethical value, a subject that I will address later. I am assuming these are areas that are not ethically wrong for a person to enjoy but are worthwhile or simply ethically neutral areas in which to seek satisfaction. I am not talking about the pursuit of activities that are cruel or destructive or even self-limiting or self-victimizing, but of things which there is no reason for a given person not to find enjoyable. They do not necessarily have to be things which are of any great value outside of the interest and enjoyment they provide the person in question; they simply must not be things which are ethically wrong (for whatever reason) for her or him to pursue or enjoy.
It is easiest for me to speak here of my own most important or most meaningful areas. I have always been a fairly inquisitive person about how things work and about how people think and why they do the things they do. I like to understand people and to understand at least the basic principles, if not always the particular details, of physics and engineering. My interest in the thinking processes of people tends to be the greater of these, and often even my interest in scientific matters is not so much a question of how things work as it is why scientists think that is how things work — the theoretical basis for believing the scientific principles. I tend to get very excited about reasonable insights into people’s minds concerning the reasons for their behavior, their ideas and views about the universe, and about things like ethics. And I tend to appreciate and often like people who discuss and share such insights, particularly if they do so especially ingeniously, cleverly, or knowledgeably, whether they are drawing on knowledge from psychology, literature, art, history, personal reflection, philosophy, or whatever. I even prefer doctors and dentists who will discuss the reasons for their diagnosis and treatment and who have insight into your feelings and concerns rather than those who only silently treat your body without much if any explanation about what they are doing and why. One series of interesting, though perhaps rather conjectural, lectures I once attended had to do with historical medical detective work, trying to relate certain aspects of behavior and thought patterns of historically important figures to medical conditions they may have had, as diagnosed from unintentional clues about them in biographies, in their own writings, and in chronicles and histories about their era.
I even like sports better when coaches or announcers display expertise about, and put emphasis on, strategy and tactics more than on raw athletic talent such as speed, strength, agility, coordination, peripheral vision, and reflexes.
I like photography and art, but I like particularly those portraits or portrayals of people that give insight into their character and do not just show their features. I often get the chance to photograph beautiful women, but almost without exception, I enjoy that more (or only at all) when the woman I am photographing is intelligent or perceptive and intellectually interesting. Though photography most obviously is of a person’s looks, still somehow one’s character and one’s mind, come through in some important way, if not in the photograph, at least in the photography session. And I have invariably found that photographing someone who is externally beautiful but immature, naive, or vacant is not nearly as exciting or as much fun as photographing someone even less objectively or obviously physically attractive who is interesting, witty, or perceptive. And I think the latter kind of person (almost) always comes out even more attractive looking in my photographs as well.
Even regarding sex, I personally find silent sex, regardless of how physically pleasurable it might be, a fairly empty experience compared to sex, even less physically pleasurable sex, that also includes witty, teasing, playful, and/or intense serious conversation that gives insights into each others’ minds and ideas. Touching each other is nice; but touching each other and talking with each other can be sublime.
I live a great deal in my head and I find that I can often get through many otherwise boring or painful experiences by simply concentrating on interesting things in a way that blocks out unwanted sensations. (I practice at the dentist’s, for example, since I am more afraid of Novocain and a dental error I cannot detect until after his office closes than of pain while he works. Unfortunately, this does not work as well at cocktail parties as it does at places where your thinking and your reveries can be uninterrupted.)
As I have grown older, finding people with perceptive insights and interesting intellectual knowledge they can explain in reasonable ways, has become increasingly important to me, particularly when I worked at jobs or was thrown unavoidably into a company that seemed to frustrate or prevent any kind of thinking.
President Kennedy admired the scope and genius of Thomas Jefferson’s intellect and once told an invited party of illustrious Nobel laureates that theirs was the greatest collection and concentration of intellect ever assembled in the White House with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
There have been many days after being around all the wrong kinds of people at work that many people have felt their level of intellectual companionship greatly increased when they got home from their jobs and closed the door to be alone or to be just with their spouse or even their younger children. I have often felt that way, and at those times in particular, finding intelligent companionship was far more important than finding any other kind of companionship.
I have not always felt this way, and I do not know how much longer I will feel this way, but for a very long time now I have primarily sought, and still primarily seek, companions with intelligent insights into the kinds of areas I find interesting, along with, or regardless of, any other satisfying characteristics they might have. These, to me, are the most enjoyable and exciting people to be with. And even previously when I was single, unattached, and lonely, if I became romantically or passionately attracted to someone who was not like this, I tended to shy away from any serious involvement with them since I knew it would not be a particularly enduringly enjoyable or fulfilling relationship for me.
Hence, with me, through most of my adult life, though sex and affection have always or often been important, and though I enjoy art, music, and a number of sports, the most meaningful and psychologically important area of life, and the area in which I have most sought and enjoyed companionship, is the area of intellectual kinship. Although I never needed for all my relationships to include this aspect (for example, I had some buddies I only played tennis with, but we had a great time and a lot of laughs on the tennis court and never tried to get together for anything else), if this area turned out to be missing in romantic relationships or in those other relationships that I wished to be more than just temporary or compartmentalized (like the tennis relationship), they were not as satisfying, full, or complete a relationship as I would like to have had them be. And although I became attracted to women who were not intellectual in this way, and have not always been attracted to women who were, it seems to be a quality that makes attraction more likely to develop in me for someone generally, and certainly one that makes romance and friendship more likely to be satisfying to me, gratifying to me, enduring, and successful. Regardless of what other important qualities or traits other people and relationships might have that I find satisfying, this one is (and has most enduringly been) the most important and the most necessary for my general happiness with the people and relationships.
That is why I have included in my characterization of love, pertaining to satisfactions, that if (and as long as) A has particularly personally important areas, whatever they might be, B must satisfy them to some extent and at least not disappoint, dissatisfy, or frustrate A in them. Whatever other areas, even whatever important areas, there may in which B makes A happy, if B does not satisfy A in these most important areas or, worse, if B frustrates or disappoints A in those areas, there is something crucial missing in the relationship for A, something that makes it less of a love relationship than it could be, and perhaps not fully a love relationship at all.
Deprivation
Sometimes something like good sex might be more important when you do not have it then when it is readily available. Some things are more psychologically important in a state of deprivation than in a state of fulfillment or easy access. Being deprived of something such as sex or food may be far more dissatisfying than having it is satisfying when it is easily available. Starving is much more of an ill or dissatisfaction than eating a normal meal or grabbing a sandwich, just because it is lunchtime, is a good or satisfaction. One takes breathing for granted and does not consider it a particular satisfaction at all, but not being able to breathe fresh air is particularly dissatisfying and can make the first few gasps of fresh air very satisfying indeed after an almost asphyxiating experience.
And not just sex, but sex of a certain sort, may be more important at some times than at others. Sometimes, or to some people, romantic, loving sex is important.   Or a gentle touch, nice personality, or someone whom you like liking your children and being kind to them, may assume monumental importance when not easily found or not readily available. Divorced women with children often particularly appreciate a date who likes their children, especially after going out with men who do not. People having a bad time or a bad relationship may overreact to and over-appreciate a person who supplies the needed missing aspects; though under normal circumstances such traits might not be quite so satisfying, stimulating, attracting, or even noticeable.
It is difficult to tell what may become so monumentally important under deprivation conditions. A simple hello may provoke the strongest affection or satisfaction in a lonely, depressed, or shy person. Finding an intelligent mind belonging to a person who is stimulated by ideas you have that so many others have ignored or belittled may be tremendously exhilarating. The deprivation of a normally unimportant satisfaction may trigger an obsession for its satisfaction that makes it difficult, or even wrong, to deny. As a desire (one which is not ethically bad or immoral) grows, it demands fewer reasons other than itself for seeking its fulfillment, and it demands greater negative reasons for its denial; the more you want something which is not somehow wrong to have, the fewer other reasons you need to pursue it.
Hence, it is extremely important to be aware of how the changing environment affects one’s own, and others’, scales of the importance of desires. Anyone may all too readily seek or accept (though often only temporarily) what would under normal circumstances be unimportant or unacceptable. For example, one often sees a divorced person marry a person only because that person is nice to them whereas their former spouse was not (perceived to be) nice to them. In such a case, just being nice may not be enough at a slightly later time when it turns out there are other needs or desires that are not being met. Or a person might fall in love during a lonely and terrifying “final exam” week at college, only to find out when the loneliness and terror of such a time passes, that they have “fallen in love” with someone they would never have under normal circumstances, and whom they cannot love now. Loneliness or fear can make one seek comfort with someone whom one would not find so appealing if one were happier or more secure. It might, in some cases, be the emotional equivalent of seeing someone at closing time in a bar through ‘beer goggles’ when they seem much more appealing than they will in the morning when one is sober; only instead of seeing them through beer goggles, one is seeing them through ‘fear goggles’ because under those conditions someone who seems comforting will be important.
(This is one reason why I think it important for children to learn that there are many people they can like who can like them and treat them nicely. This is why it is important for adolescents and adults to realize, as some people crudely and cruelly put it, “there are many fish in the sea” — that is, there are many, many people whom they can like and who will like them, so that they need not fear, or become dejected by, rejection from some, that they need not view such rejection as an objective sign of their unworthiness to everyone, that they need not become terribly infatuated with the first person, or every person, who is nice to them or shows an interest in them. There is certainly nothing wrong with young love or infatuations of this sort, but it would probably be less painful in the long run to realize that if the relationship is based mainly or solely on this sort of liking someone simply because they like you, accept you, show an interest in, you, or are nice to you, it may be ill-fated because of the lack of other satisfactions or goods; and/or it may be ill-fated because the infatuation may cease when the person finds out many others may also show the same interest and consideration.)
What is important then, in terms of satisfaction, is what is important to a particular person at a particular time under particular circumstances. No satisfaction of equal ethical value can be or should be considered to be any more important than any other without reference to people, time, and circumstance.
 But I am no longer certain about that. I no longer believe that being able to discuss problems will always help you solve them in a relationship; it also takes goodwill and empathy or sympathy for the other person, and it takes both partners wanting to work out problems and having some insight and understanding how to do that. If the two of you have no need nor desire to talk much with each other, then enjoying dancing, sex, or bowling frequently might be every bit as satisfying as having discussions is to more cerebrally inclined people.
A relationship with strong sexual gratification and little else may be doomed to failure in terms of being completely satisfying, but then so may one involving little but intellectual gratification. One can have few new ideas every day, certainly too few to be able to provide terribly much conversation for very long with a constant companion. And I am not sure which relationship in general, if either, would be likely to grow old and stale faster. Perhaps for the longevity of a relationship, it is important to have a number of areas you enjoy with each other. Perhaps sociologists can determine that.
It is, of course, better not to have problems, or to have the abilities to solve as many problems as can arise; but given normal human limitations, difficult problems will arise in relationships. I would be interested to know whether some are inherently more destructive than others. Of course, there have been statistics available on such supposed causes of divorce as drinking, financial disagreements or problems, religious differences, etc. but these problems may only be symptomatic ones or ones aggravated or caused by other more basic defects in relationships, such as an inability to express feelings or even know one’s own feelings or inability to understand a partner’s problems or feelings. Are there some abilities or inabilities that are more important for (prolonging) happiness in relationships? I am not as certain as I used to be. It would be nice if social scientists could provide clues about what kinds of gratifications are more likely to remain gratifying for what kinds of people and relationships, if any. And hopefully, these clues would be accompanied by insights into their causal, and not just their statistically probable, nature.
In terms of satisfaction alone, not total value of the relationship, the somewhat perhaps simplistic relationship between Archie and Edith Bunker is perhaps a very satisfying relationship for them, though it would not be for people such as Gloria Steinem or Alan Alda.
But if Archie and Edith are happy with each other, and if they are doing the best they can, given where they are in life, what more, if anything, can be reasonably asked or wanted in their relationship?
Is the Most Enjoyable Relationship The Best Relationship?
The distinction between satisfaction on the one hand and other kinds of ethical goodness or value on the other prompts a question that is like the question to be raised in the ethics chapter — whether happiness (or call it satisfaction or contentment) is the single most important, or ultimately only, goal of people’s lives. I will try to show there that it is not, that the person with the happiest existence is not, therefore, the person leading the best life. But here let me just say that the people with the most satisfactory or satisfying relationships are not, therefore, the persons with the best relationships necessarily. For example, the soppy-dependent housewife who may be happy, but who has given up even unknowingly any opportunity for personal growth and development and/or accomplishment at the expense of that happiness.
But again, just in regard to the area of satisfaction alone, certainly physical beauty and sexual gratification can, and in many cases do, fade; but so can intellectual satisfactions as well as emotional ones. I am not certain that there is any one or any set of satisfactions that will necessarily guaranty to happily or satisfactorily sustain a relationship such as marriage through a long period of time. It might also vary for different people. It might be the ability not to change (if that is an ability) or, more likely I would think, the ability to adapt to each others’ changes in a successful way that does not make either party unhappy. And if each person changes in a way that makes them even more satisfying to the other, then all the better for the relationship. This is one way in which love or a loving relationship can grow more loving. It is all too rare perhaps, but it does happen.
Sometimes in a relationship, a woman, say, if she was not this way before, may start to grow independent in many of her actions from her husband. She may begin to work outside the home, becoming successful; may learn to play new sports such as tennis or golf, etc. In short, she may not depend on him for her achievements or for her emotional needs in the way she did before. Now, this may cause a boon to their marriage if he likes her all the more as a person this way and if she is a better person to him as well as to herself because of it. Or, as in too many cases, it can wreak havoc in the marriage because either the husband becomes insecure or jealous and cannot handle it or because the woman feels she has outgrown her husband with her new life and finds she is not interested in him anymore. Or she may simply become too busy to be able to meet some of his legitimate needs or desires. Or he may have too many unreasonable and selfish needs to be able to cope with her new independence.
I used to think non-contemplative or ignorant people were less likely to have happiness or happy relationships — that somewhere in their lives something bad would happen they could not cope with and that they had not prepared for. But I don’t any longer think life always works that way.  They often don’t even notice things that would bother other people, or they just incorrectly accept them as inevitable and go on about their business. They may not have the best lives but they may have happier or more satisfying lives or relationships. For some, ignorance is bliss, though just not best.
In some cases where stability and sameness are due to unwavering traditions, no matter how unreasonable or bad the traditions, long term happiness is more easily achieved because what happens is expected and what is expected and (thought to be desirable and therefore) desired happens. In contrast, change, no matter how much for the better it might be, may cause difficult adjustment and may be dissatisfying to some who are less flexible and less interested in surprise.
People who are neither dumb nor lucky often do need some guidance in working out relationship problems or knowing how and when to terminate in the most agreeable way a relationship which, perhaps not through anybody’s fault, has grown irreparably bad, either through loss of feelings of attraction, loss of satisfactions, or loss of goodness. Certainly, many people change throughout their lives and the changes may bring dissatisfactions or problems to their relationships. And these may be dissatisfactions that are insurmountable without more sacrifice or harm than is fair to ask or allow. But it seems to me that most of the problems that arise in relationships, even those that may call for “ending” a relationship do not call for any particularly great intelligence nor for deep or endless analysis to solve. It seems to me that most people with anywhere near normal intelligence and verbal ability can deal with each other about their relationship if they have some understanding of ethical behavior and some psychological insight into their, and their partner’s, needs and joys and wants. And if both want to try to work out their problems rationally, amicably, and fairly.
On one All in the Family episode, Archie mistakenly tried to pursue a romantic attraction for a waitress who had repeatedly flirted with him. It was at a time that he was particularly vulnerable to someone else’s interest in him because he was feeling ignored and abandoned by Edith who was doing time-consuming work that was exciting to her at a nursing home. Edith found out about the waitress, and told Archie she saw why he liked the girl — because the girl was younger looking and prettier than she. But Archie had already come to his senses and simply told Edith he had simply done a stupid thing, having momentarily lost his head, and that Edith did not have to worry about her looks to him at all because (in his characteristic backhanded complimentary and sensible explanation) “the good Lord saw to it that as he and other people got older, their eyes lost the ability to see things that weren’t any more important anyway.” It was not the waitress’s looks that had flattered and tempted Archie, but her interest in him at a time when he felt Edith had lost that interest. That was what was important to him then. And he knew that and tried to tell it to Edith.
Of course, All in the Family was written by people with insight, but people with less verbal or analytic ability often do have the kind of knowledge, if not wit, to explain their feelings, their actions, and their concerns to their loved ones and then solve the problems they face. I no longer think an intellectually gratifying relationship is necessarily likely to be happier longer than one that is primarily say sexually gratifying. There will probably be enough intellect involved, or at least there could be, in the sexually gratifying relationship to solve problems that can be solved in it.
“I didn’t really believe you when you said sex was not necessarily the most important thing in love. But now that I have been married for a year, I have to admit that you were right. Sex is great, but the thing I appreciate and enjoy even more is that when I wake up in the middle of the night and cannot get back to sleep [my husband], even if he is very tired, will keep himself awake and just talk to me until I am relaxed and comforted enough to fall back to sleep. That is the nicest thing.” — a friend of mine.
Key Takeaways
- Figuring out what is important in a relationship to you, and in what way(s) it or they are important.
- Sex or the thought of sex may be very pleasant at some times and not pleasant at all at other times. Sex and food are not too different in this regard; when you are fully satisfied by either, the thought of more of it is not always pleasurable.
Key Terms
- Unrequited love is being loved by those who excite no passion in you.
Review Questions
- Question : What are three different issues related to the importance of satisfactions in relationships?
- Question : What is sometimes at least as bad as the frustrations of your unrequited love or even unrequited desire for someone else?


15.5: The Internal Organization and External Environments
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
- Explain how organizations organize to meet external market threats and opportunities.
At a basic level of understanding how internal organizations respond to environments, consider the theory of Open Systems, which the organizational theorists Katz and Kahn and Bertalanffy introduced.
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) illustrates this theory’s view of organizations as open systems that take in resources and raw materials at the “input” phase from the environment in a number of forms, depending on the nature of the organization, industry, and its business. Whatever the input resources are—information, raw materials, students entering a university—to be transformed by the internal processes of the organization. The internal organizational systems then process and transform the input material, which is called “through-put” phase, and move the changed material (resources) to the “outputs” and back into the environment as products, services, graduates, etc.
The open systems model serves as a feedback loop continually taking in resources from the environment, processing and transforming them into outputs that are returned to the environment. This model explains organizational survival that emphasizes long-term goals.
Organizations according to this theory are considered as either Open or Closed systems, (or relatively opened or closed) depending on the organization’s sensitivity to the environment. Closed systems are less sensitive to environmental resources and possibilities, and open systems are more responsive and adaptive to environmental changes. For example, during the 1980’s the then Big 3 U.S. auto manufacturers (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) were pressured by Japanese auto manufacturers’ successful 4-cylinder car sales that hit the U.S. like a shock wave. The Detroit producers experienced slumping sales, plant closures, and employee lay-offs in response to the Japanese wave of competition. It seemed that the U.S. auto makers had become closed or at least insensitive to changing trends in cars during that time and were unwilling to change manufacturing processes. Similarly, Amazon’s business model, discussed earlier, has and continues to pressure retailers to innovate and change processes and practices to compete in this digital era.
Organizations respond to external environments not only through their structures, but also by the domains they choose and the internal dimensions and capabilities they select. An organization defines itself and its niche in an environment by the choice of its domain , i.e., what sector or field of the environment it will use its technology, products, and services to compete in and serve. Some of the major sectors of a task environment include marketing, technology, government, financial resources, and human resources.
Presently, several environmental domains that once were considered stable have become more complex and unstable—e.g., toys, public utilities, the U.S. Postal Service, and higher education. And even domains are changing. For example, as referred to earlier, the traditionally stable and somewhat unchanging domain of higher education has become more complex with the entry of for-profit educational institutions, MOOCs (massive open online courses), internal company “universities,” and other certification and degree programs outside traditional private institutions. Sharing-economy companies such as Uber and Airbnb have redefined the transportation domain in which taxis operate and the hospitality domain in which hotels and bed and breakfasts serve. New business models that use mobile phones, ICTs (information communication technologies), and apps remove middle management layers in traditional organizations and structures.
With a chosen domain in which to operate, owners and leaders must organize internal dimensions to compete in and serve their markets. For example, hierarchies of authority and chain of command are used by owners and top-level leaders to develop and implement strategic and enterprise decisions; managers are required to provide technologies, training, accounting, legal, and other infrastructure resources; and cultures still count to establish and maintain norms, relationships, legal and ethical practices, and the reputation of organizations.
Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) shows internal organizational dimensions. These dimensions and systems include leadership, strategy, culture, management, goals, marketing, operations, and structure. Relationships, norms, and politics are also included in the informal organization. There are other internal functions not listed here, such as research and development, accounting and finance, production, and human resources. Another popular depiction of internal organizational dimensions is the McKinsey 7-S model , shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\). Similarly, strategy, structure, systems, skills, staff, and style all revolve around and are interconnected with shared values (or culture) in an organization.
A unifying framework shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\), developed by Arie Lewin and Carroll Stephens, illustrates the integration of internal organizational dimensions and how these work in practice to align with the external environment. Note that it is the CEO and other top-level leaders who scan the external environment to identify uncertainties and resources before using a SWOT analysis (identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to confirm and update the domain of an organization and then to define the vision, mission, goals, and strategies. Once the enterprise goals and strategies are developed, the organizational culture, structure, and other systems and policies can be established (human resources, technologies, accounting and finance, and so on).
As Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\) shows, after a CEO and the top-level team identify opportunities and threats in the environment, they then determine the domain and purpose of the organization from which strategies, organizational capabilities, resources, and management systems must be mobilized to support the enterprise’s purpose. The company McDonald’s has, for example, successfully aligned its enterprise with the global environments it serves, which is “1% of the world’s population—more than 70 million customers—every day and in virtually every country across the world.” The major operating goal of the firm driving its internal alignment is a “fanatical attention to the design and management of scalable processes, routines, and a working culture by which simple, stand-alone, and standardized products are sold globally at a predictable, and therefore manageable, volume, quality, and cost.” A more detailed SWOT analysis of McDonald’s operations can be found in endnote.
In practice, no internal organizational alignment with its external environment is perfect or permanent. Quite the opposite. Companies and organizations change leadership and strategies and make structural and systems changes to meet changing competition, market forces, and customers and end users’ needs and demands. Even Amazon continues to develop, expand, and change. With a mission statement as bold and broad as Amazon’s, change is a constant: “Our vision is to be earth’s most customer-centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online” (Amazon.com, Apr 15, 2018).
Amazon has a functional organizational structure that focuses on business functions for determining the interactions among the different parts of the company. Amazon’s corporate structure is best characterized as global function-based groups (most significant feature), a global hierarchy, and geographic divisions, as Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\) shows. This structure seems to fit with the size of Amazon’s business—43% of 2016 retail sales were in the United States. Seven segments, including information technology, human resources and legal operations, and heads of segments, report to Amazon’s CEO. “Senior management team include two CEOs, three Senior Vice Presidents and one Worldwide Controller, who are responsible for various vital aspects of the business reporting directly to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.” The strategic goal underlying this structure is to facilitate Amazon.com to successfully implement e-commerce operations management throughout the entire organization.
Despite the company’s exponential growth and success to date, as noted earlier in the section on organizational structures, a disadvantage of structures such as Amazon’s, and in this case Amazon’s, is that it has limited flexibility and responsiveness even with its current growth. “The dominance of the global function-based groups and global hierarchy characteristics reduces the capacity of Amazon to rapidly respond to new issues and problems encountered in the e-commerce business.” Still, Amazon’s most outstanding success factor remains its CEO, Jeff Bezos—his ingenuity, vision and foresight, and ability to sustain and even extend the company’s competitive advantages. Amazon customers value these factors—customer purchase criteria (CPC) that include price, fast delivery, and reliable service. “Consumers choose Amazon because it does better than its competition on these CPC.”
concept check
- Explain the McKinsey 7-S model.


A patient is experiencing Braxton Hicks contractions during the third trimester. Describe the counseling or teaching you would provide them to encourage comfort and teach them about emergency signs pertinent to this stage of pregnancy.
2 .
Compare labor contractions and Braxton Hicks contractions. Describe the risks of incorrectly identifying each of these as a labor and delivery nurse.
3 .
What is the consensus on how long labor should last?
4 .
What mechanisms cause the cervix to dilate and efface during active labor?
5 .
How will the nurse know the placenta is close to being born?
6 .
Explain the responsibilities of the nurse in the fourth stage of labor.
7 .
Describe what happens to the laboring person’s pulse during the first stage of labor.
8 .
If a birthing person begins profusely vomiting during the first stage of labor, they are likely entering what phase of labor?
9 .
What is a possible negative effect on the fetus during the second stage of labor due to the stress of pushing?
10 .
Your patient in labor is crying. How do you address this?
11 .
What emotions does the nurse expect a patient to report in early labor?
12 .
Explain the importance of the presence of family support during labor and birth.


5: Adaptive Specific Host Defenses
People living in developed nations and born in the 1960s or later may have difficulty understanding the once heavy burden of devastating infectious diseases. For example, smallpox, a deadly viral disease, once destroyed entire civilizations but has since been eradicated. Thanks to the vaccination efforts by multiple groups, including the World Health Organization, Rotary International, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), smallpox has not been diagnosed in a patient since 1977. Polio is another excellent example. This crippling viral disease paralyzed patients, who were often kept alive in “iron lung wards” as recently as the 1950s. Today, vaccination against polio has nearly eradicated the disease. Vaccines have also reduced the prevalence of once-common infectious diseases such as chickenpox, German measles, measles, mumps, and whooping cough. The success of these and other vaccines is due to the very specific and adaptive host defenses that are the focus of this chapter.
Forum of Fargo-Moorhead ile photo of an iron lung ward during the 1940s that were prevalent in U.S. hospitals.
Innate Nonspecific Host Defenses described innate immunity against microbial pathogens. Higher animals, such as humans, also possess an adaptive immune defense, which is highly specific for individual microbial pathogens. This specific adaptive immunity is acquired through active infection or vaccination and serves as an important defense against pathogens that evade the defenses of innate immunity.


16.3: Standard Reduction Potentials
- Determine standard cell potentials for oxidation-reduction reactions
- Use standard reduction potentials to determine the better oxidizing or reducing agent from among several possible choices
The cell potential results from the difference in the electrical potentials for each electrode. While it is impossible to determine the electrical potential of a single electrode, we can assign an electrode the value of zero and then use it as a reference. The electrode chosen as the zero is shown in Figure 17.4.1 and is called the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) . The SHE consists of 1 atm of hydrogen gas bubbled through a 1 M HCl solution, usually at room temperature. Platinum, which is chemically inert, is used as the electrode. The reduction half-reaction chosen as the reference is
\[\ce{2H+}(aq,\: 1\:M)+\ce{2e-}⇌\ce{H2}(g,\:1\: \ce{atm}) \hspace{20px} E°=\mathrm{0\: V} \nonumber \]
E ° is the standard reduction potential. The superscript “°” on the E denotes standard conditions (1 bar or 1 atm for gases, 1 M for solutes). The voltage is defined as zero for all temperatures.
A galvanic cell consisting of a SHE and Cu 2 + /Cu half-cell can be used to determine the standard reduction potential for Cu 2 + (Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)). In cell notation, the reaction is
\[\ce{Pt}(s)│\ce{H2}(g,\:1\: \ce{atm})│\ce{H+}(aq,\:1\:M)║\ce{Cu^2+}(aq,\:1\:M)│\ce{Cu}(s) \nonumber \]
Electrons flow from the anode to the cathode. The reactions, which are reversible, are
\[\begin{align*}
&\textrm{Anode (oxidation): }\ce{H2}(g)⟶\ce{2H+}(aq) + \ce{2e-}\\
&\textrm{Cathode (reduction): }\ce{Cu^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Cu}(s)\\
&\overline{\textrm{Overall: }\ce{Cu^2+}(aq)+\ce{H2}(g)⟶\ce{2H+}(aq)+\ce{Cu}(s)}
\end{align*} \nonumber \]
The standard reduction potential can be determined by subtracting the standard reduction potential for the reaction occurring at the anode from the standard reduction potential for the reaction occurring at the cathode. The minus sign is necessary because oxidation is the reverse of reduction.
\[E^\circ_\ce{cell}=E^\circ_\ce{cathode}−E^\circ_\ce{anode} \nonumber \]
\[\mathrm{+0.34\: V}=E^\circ_{\ce{Cu^2+/Cu}}−E^\circ_{\ce{H+/H2}}=E^\circ_{\ce{Cu^2+/Cu}}−0=E^\circ_{\ce{Cu^2+/Cu}} \nonumber \]
Using the SHE as a reference, other standard reduction potentials can be determined. Consider the cell shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\), where
\[\ce{Pt}(s)│\ce{H2}(g,\:1\: \ce{atm})│\ce{H+}(aq,\: 1\:M)║\ce{Ag+}(aq,\: 1\:M)│\ce{Ag}(s) \nonumber \]
Electrons flow from left to right, and the reactions are
\[\begin{align*}
&\textrm{anode (oxidation): }\ce{H2}(g)⟶\ce{2H+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}\\
&\textrm{cathode (reduction): }\ce{2Ag+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2Ag}(s)\\
&\overline{\textrm{overall: }\ce{2Ag+}(aq)+\ce{H2}(g)⟶\ce{2H+}(aq)+\ce{2Ag}(s)}
\end{align*} \nonumber \]
The standard reduction potential can be determined by subtracting the standard reduction potential for the reaction occurring at the anode from the standard reduction potential for the reaction occurring at the cathode. The minus sign is needed because oxidation is the reverse of reduction.
\[E^\circ_\ce{cell}=E^\circ_\ce{cathode}−E^\circ_\ce{anode} \nonumber \]
\[\mathrm{+0.80\: V}=E^\circ_{\ce{Ag+/Ag}}−E^\circ_{\ce{H+/H2}}=E^\circ_{\ce{Ag+/Ag}}−0=E^\circ_{\ce{Ag+/Ag}} \nonumber \]
It is important to note that the potential is not doubled for the cathode reaction.
The SHE is rather dangerous and rarely used in the laboratory. Its main significance is that it established the zero for standard reduction potentials. Once determined, standard reduction potentials can be used to determine the standard cell potential , \(E^\circ_\ce{cell}\), for any cell. For example, for the following cell:
\[\ce{Cu}(s)│\ce{Cu^2+}(aq,\:1\:M)║\ce{Ag+}(aq,\:1\:M)│\ce{Ag}(s) \nonumber \]
\[\begin{align*}
&\textrm{anode (oxidation): }\ce{Cu}(s)⟶\ce{Cu^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}\\
&\textrm{cathode (reduction): }\ce{2Ag+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2Ag}(s)\\
&\overline{\textrm{overall: }\ce{Cu}(s)+\ce{2Ag+}(aq)⟶\ce{Cu^2+}(aq)+\ce{2Ag}(s)}
\end{align*} \nonumber \]
\[E^\circ_\ce{cell}=E^\circ_\ce{cathode}−E^\circ_\ce{anode}=E^\circ_{\ce{Ag+/Ag}}−E^\circ_{\ce{Cu^2+/Cu}}=\mathrm{0.80\: V−0.34\: V=0.46\: V} \nonumber \]
Again, note that when calculating \(E^\circ_\ce{cell}\), standard reduction potentials always remain the same even when a half-reaction is multiplied by a factor. Standard reduction potentials for selected reduction reactions are shown in Table \(\PageIndex{1}\). A more complete list is provided in Tables P1 or P2.
| Half-Reaction | E° (V) |
|---|---|
| \(\ce{F2}(g)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2F-}(aq)\) | +2.866 |
| \(\ce{PbO2}(s)+\ce{SO4^2-}(aq)+\ce{4H+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{PbSO4}(s)+\ce{2H2O}(l)\) | +1.69 |
| \(\ce{MnO4-}(aq)+\ce{8H+}(aq)+\ce{5e-}⟶\ce{Mn^2+}(aq)+\ce{4H2O}(l)\) | +1.507 |
| \(\ce{Au^3+}(aq)+\ce{3e-}⟶\ce{Au}(s)\) | +1.498 |
| \(\ce{Cl2}(g)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2Cl-}(aq)\) | +1.35827 |
| \(\ce{O2}(g)+\ce{4H+}(aq)+\ce{4e-}⟶\ce{2H2O}(l)\) | +1.229 |
| \(\ce{Pt^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Pt}(s)\) | +1.20 |
| \(\ce{Br2}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2Br-}(aq)\) | +1.0873 |
| \(\ce{Ag+}(aq)+\ce{e-}⟶\ce{Ag}(s)\) | +0.7996 |
| \(\ce{Hg2^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2Hg}(l)\) | +0.7973 |
| \(\ce{Fe^3+}(aq)+\ce{e-}⟶\ce{Fe^2+}(aq)\) | +0.771 |
| \(\ce{MnO4-}(aq)+\ce{2H2O}(l)+\ce{3e-}⟶\ce{MnO2}(s)+\ce{4OH-}(aq)\) | +0.558 |
| \(\ce{I2}(s)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2I-}(aq)\) | +0.5355 |
| \(\ce{NiO2}(s)+\ce{2H2O}(l)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Ni(OH)2}(s)+\ce{2OH-}(aq)\) | +0.49 |
| \(\ce{Cu^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Cu}(s)\) | +0.34 |
| \(\ce{Hg2Cl2}(s)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{2Hg}(l)+\ce{2Cl-}(aq)\) | +0.26808 |
| \(\ce{AgCl}(s)+\ce{e-}⟶\ce{Ag}(s)+\ce{Cl-}(aq)\) | +0.22233 |
| \(\ce{Sn^4+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Sn^2+}(aq)\) | +0.151 |
| \(\ce{2H+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{H2}(g)\) | 0.00 |
| \(\ce{Pb^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Pb}(s)\) | −0.1262 |
| \(\ce{Sn^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Sn}(s)\) | −0.1375 |
| \(\ce{Ni^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Ni}(s)\) | −0.257 |
| \(\ce{Co^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Co}(s)\) | −0.28 |
| \(\ce{PbSO4}(s)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Pb}(s)+\ce{SO4^2-}(aq)\) | −0.3505 |
| \(\ce{Cd^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Cd}(s)\) | −0.4030 |
| \(\ce{Fe^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Fe}(s)\) | −0.447 |
| \(\ce{Cr^3+}(aq)+\ce{3e-}⟶\ce{Cr}(s)\) | −0.744 |
| \(\ce{Mn^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Mn}(s)\) | −1.185 |
| \(\ce{Zn(OH)2}(s)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Zn}(s)+\ce{2OH-}(aq)\) | −1.245 |
| \(\ce{Zn^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Zn}(s)\) | −0.7618 |
| \(\ce{Al^3+}(aq)+\ce{3e-}⟶\ce{Al}(s)\) | −1.662 |
| \(\ce{Mg^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Mg}(s)\) | −2.372 |
| \(\ce{Na+}(aq)+\ce{e-}⟶\ce{Na}(s)\) | −2.71 |
| \(\ce{Ca^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Ca}(s)\) | −2.868 |
| \(\ce{Ba^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Ba}(s)\) | −2.912 |
| \(\ce{K+}(aq)+\ce{e-}⟶\ce{K}(s)\) | −2.931 |
| \(\ce{Li+}(aq)+\ce{e-}⟶\ce{Li}(s)\) | −3.04 |
Tables like this make it possible to determine the standard cell potential for many oxidation-reduction reactions.
What is the standard cell potential for a galvanic cell that consists of Au 3 + /Au and Ni 2 + /Ni half-cells? Identify the oxidizing and reducing agents.
Solution
Using Table \(\PageIndex{1}\), the reactions involved in the galvanic cell, both written as reductions, are
\[\ce{Au^3+}(aq)+\ce{3e-}⟶\ce{Au}(s) \hspace{20px} E^\circ_{\ce{Au^3+/Au}}=\mathrm{+1.498\: V} \nonumber \]
\[\ce{Ni^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-}⟶\ce{Ni}(s) \hspace{20px} E^\circ_{\ce{Ni^2+/Ni}}=\mathrm{−0.257\: V} \nonumber \]
Galvanic cells have positive cell potentials, and all the reduction reactions are reversible. The reaction at the anode will be the half-reaction with the smaller or more negative standard reduction potential. Reversing the reaction at the anode (to show the oxidation) but not its standard reduction potential gives:
\[\begin{align*}
&\textrm{Anode (oxidation): }\ce{Ni}(s)⟶\ce{Ni^2+}(aq)+\ce{2e-} \hspace{20px} E^\circ_\ce{anode}=E^\circ_{\ce{Ni^2+/Ni}}=\mathrm{−0.257\: V}\\
&\textrm{Cathode (reduction): }\ce{Au^3+}(aq)+\ce{3e-}⟶\ce{Au}(s) \hspace{20px} E^\circ_\ce{cathode}=E^\circ_{\ce{Au^3+/Au}}=\mathrm{+1.498\: V}
\end{align*} \nonumber \]
The least common factor is six, so the overall reaction is
The reduction potentials are not scaled by the stoichiometric coefficients when calculating the cell potential, and the unmodified standard reduction potentials must be used.
\[E^\circ_\ce{cell}=E^\circ_\ce{cathode}−E^\circ_\ce{anode}=\mathrm{1.498\: V−(−0.257\: V)=1.755\: V} \nonumber \]
From the half-reactions, Ni is oxidized, so it is the reducing agent, and Au 3 + is reduced, so it is the oxidizing agent.
A galvanic cell consists of a Mg electrode in 1 M Mg(NO 3 ) 2 solution and a Ag electrode in 1 M AgNO 3 solution. Calculate the standard cell potential at 25 °C.
- Answer
-
\[\ce{Mg}(s)+\ce{2Ag+}(aq)⟶\ce{Mg^2+}(aq)+\ce{2Ag}(s) \hspace{20px} E^\circ_\ce{cell}=\mathrm{0.7996\: V−(−2.372\: V)=3.172\: V} \nonumber \]
Summary
Assigning the potential of the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) as zero volts allows the determination of standard reduction potentials, E° , for half-reactions in electrochemical cells. As the name implies, standard reduction potentials use standard states (1 bar or 1 atm for gases; 1 M for solutes, often at 298.15 K) and are written as reductions (where electrons appear on the left side of the equation). The reduction reactions are reversible, so standard cell potentials can be calculated by subtracting the standard reduction potential for the reaction at the anode from the standard reduction for the reaction at the cathode. When calculating the standard cell potential, the standard reduction potentials are not scaled by the stoichiometric coefficients in the balanced overall equation.
Key Equations
- \(E^\circ_\ce{cell}=E^\circ_\ce{cathode}−E^\circ_\ce{anode}\)
Glossary
- standard cell potential \( (E^\circ_\ce{cell})\)
- the cell potential when all reactants and products are in their standard states (1 bar or 1 atm or gases; 1 M for solutes), usually at 298.15 K; can be calculated by subtracting the standard reduction potential for the half-reaction at the anode from the standard reduction potential for the half-reaction occurring at the cathode
- standard hydrogen electrode (SHE)
- the electrode consists of hydrogen gas bubbling through hydrochloric acid over an inert platinum electrode whose reduction at standard conditions is assigned a value of 0 V; the reference point for standard reduction potentials
- standard reduction potential ( E °)
- the value of the reduction under standard conditions (1 bar or 1 atm for gases; 1 M for solutes) usually at 298.15 K; tabulated values used to calculate standard cell potentials


 Protists may be unicellular or multicellular. They vary in how they get their nutrition, morphology, method of locomotion, and mode of reproduction. Important structures of protists include contractile vacuoles, cilia, flagella, pellicles, and pseudopodia; some lack organelles such as mitochondria. Taxonomy of protists is changing rapidly as relationships are reassessed using newer techniques.
-
- 5.1: Parasitic Helminths
- Helminth parasites are included within the study of microbiology because they are often identified by looking for microscopic eggs and larvae. The two major groups of helminth parasites are the roundworms (Nematoda) and the flatworms (Platyhelminthes). Nematodes are common intestinal parasites often transmitted through undercooked foods, although they are also found in other environments. Platyhelminths include tapeworms and flukes, which are often transmitted through undercooked meat.
-
- 5.2: Fungi
- The fungi include diverse saprotrophic eukaryotic organisms with chitin cell walls. Fungi can be unicellular or multicellular; some (like yeast) and fungal spores are microscopic, whereas some are large and conspicuous. Reproductive types are important in distinguishing fungal groups. Medically important species exist in the four fungal groups Zygomycota, Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, and Microsporidia.
-
- 5.3: Algae
- Algae are a diverse group of photosynthetic eukaryotic protists Algae may be unicellular or multicellular Large, multicellular algae are called seaweeds but are not plants and lack plant-like tissues and organs Although algae have little pathogenicity, they may be associated with toxic algal blooms that can and aquatic wildlife and contaminate seafood with toxins that cause paralysis.
-
- 5.4: Lichens
- Lichens are a symbiotic association between a fungus and an algae or a cyanobacterium. The symbiotic association found in lichens is currently considered to be a controlled parasitism, in which the fungus benefits and the algae or cyanobacterium is harmed. Lichens are slow growing and can live for centuries in a variety of habitats. Lichens are environmentally important, helping to create soil, providing food, and acting as indicators of air pollution.
Thumbnail: Mold growing on a clementine . Image used with permission (CC SA-BY 3.0; ).


Section 1: From sentences to predicates
Consider the following argument, which is obviously valid in English:
If everyone knows logic, then either no one will be confused or everyone will. Everyone will be confused only if we try to believe a contradiction. This is a logic class, so everyone knows logic. .˙. If we don’t try to believe a contradiction, then no one will be confused.
In order to symbolize this in SL, we will need a symbolization key.
L
: Everyone knows logic.
N
: No one will be confused.
E
: Everyone will be confused.
B
: We try to believe a contradiction.
Notice that \(N\) and \(E\) are both about people being confused, but they are two separate sentence letters. We could not replace \(E\) with ¬\(N\). Why not? ¬\(N\) means ‘It is not the case that no one will be confused.’ This would be the case if even one person were confused, so it is a long way from saying that everyone will be confused.
Once we have separate sentence letters for \(N\) and \(E\), however, we erase any connection between the two. They are just two atomic sentences which might be true or false independently. In English, it could never be the case that both no one and everyone was confused. As sentences of SL, however, there is a truth-value assignment for which N and E are both true.
Expressions like ‘no one’, ‘everyone’, and ‘anyone’ are called quantifiers . By translating \(N\) and \(E\) as separate atomic sentences, we leave out the quantifier structure of the sentences. Fortunately, the quantifier structure is not what makes this argument valid. As such, we can safely ignore it. To see this, we translate the argument to SL:
\(L\) → (\(N\)∨\(E\))
\(E\) → \(B\)
\(L\)
.˙. ¬\(B\) → \(N\)
This is a valid argument in SL. (You can do a truth table to check this.)
Now consider another argument. This one is also valid in English.
Willard is a logician. All logicians wear funny hats.
.˙. Willard wears a funny hat.
To symbolize it in SL, we define a symbolization key:
L
: Willard is a logician.
A
: All logicians wear funny hats.

Now we symbolize the argument:
\(L\)
\(A\)
.˙. \(F\)
This is invalid in SL. (Again, you can confirm this with a truth table.) There is something very wrong here, because this is clearly a valid argument in English. The symbolization in SL leaves out all the important structure. Once again, the translation to SL overlooks quantifier structure: The sentence ‘All logicians wear funny hats’ is about both logicians and hat-wearing. By not translating this structure, we lose the connection between Willard’s being a logician and Willard’s wearing a hat.
Some arguments with quantifier structure can be captured in SL, like the first example, even though SL ignores the quantifier structure. Other arguments are completely botched in SL, like the second example. Notice that the problem is not that we have made a mistake while symbolizing the second argument. These are the best symbolizations we can give for these arguments in SL.
Generally, if an argument containing quantifiers comes out valid in SL, then the English language argument is valid. If it comes out invalid in SL , then we cannot say the English language argument is invalid. The argument might be valid because of quantifier structure which the natural language argument has and which the argument in SL lacks.
Similarly, if a sentence with quantifiers comes out as a tautology in SL, then the English sentence is logically true. If it comes out as contingent in SL , then this might be because of the structure of the quantifiers that gets removed when we translate into the formal language.
In order to symbolize arguments that rely on quantifier structure, we need to develop a different logical language. We will call this language quantified logic, QL.


12.4: The Wave Nature of Matter
Learning Objectives
- Describe de Broglie wavelength of particles.
- Explain wave-particle duality of nature.
De Broglie Wavelength
In the photoelectric effect, we have seen that light, classically understood as waves, behaves like particles sometimes. In 1923 a French physics graduate student named Prince Louis-Victor de Broglie (1892–1987) made a radical proposal based on the hope that nature is symmetric, suggesting that not only EM radiation has both particle and wave properties but that this dual-nature might be universal to all particles. De Broglie’s suggestion, made as part of his doctoral thesis, was so radical that it was greeted with some skepticism. A copy of his thesis was sent to Einstein, who said it was not only probably correct, but that it might be of fundamental importance. With the support of Einstein and a few other prominent physicists, de Broglie was awarded his doctorate.
De Broglie took both relativity and quantum mechanics into account to develop the proposal that all particles have a wavelength , given by
\[\lambda=\frac{h}{p} \text { (matter and photons), } \nonumber \]
where \(h\) is Planck’s constant and \(p\) is momentum. This is defined to be the de Broglie wavelength . This is consistent with the expression for energy of a photon, \(E=h f\). In relativity, energy of a massless particle like a photon is related to momentum by \(E=p c\), where \(c\) is speed of light (contrast this with nonrelativistic kinetic energy of particles of mass \(m\), \(\mathrm{KE}=p^{2} / 2 m\); check the units for yourself). From the wave relationship between wave speed, wavelength, and frequency, we have, for photons, \(c=\lambda f\). Plugging in these \(E\) and \(f\) into the photon energy from the photoelectric effect, we get, \(p c=h c / \lambda\), and cancelling out \(c\) from both sides gives the same expression as de Broglie wavelength.
The hallmark of a wave is interference. If matter is a wave, then it must exhibit constructive and destructive interference. Why isn’t this ordinarily observed? The answer is that in order to see significant interference effects, a wave must interact with an object about the same size as its wavelength. Since \(h\) is very small, \(\lambda\) is also small, especially for macroscopic objects. A 3-kg bowling ball moving at 10 m/s, for example, has
\[\lambda=h / p=\left(6.63 \times 10^{-34} \mathrm{~J} \cdot \mathrm{s}\right) /[(3 \mathrm{~kg})(10 \mathrm{~m} / \mathrm{s})]=2 \times 10^{-35} \mathrm{~m}. \nonumber\]
This means that to see its wave characteristics, the bowling ball would have to interact with something about \(10^{-35} \mathrm{~m}\) in size—far smaller than anything known. When waves interact with objects much larger than their wavelength, they show negligible interference effects and move in straight lines (such as light rays in geometric optics). To obtain longer wavelengths and make wave nature of matter readily apparent, we need smaller momentum, \(p\), and this is easier to achieve in electrons, the lightest common matter particle we know.
American physicists Clinton J. Davisson and Lester H. Germer in 1925 and, independently, British physicist G. P. Thomson (son of J. J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron) in 1926 scattered electrons from crystals and found diffraction patterns. These patterns are exactly consistent with interference of electrons having the de Broglie wavelength and are somewhat analogous to light interacting with a diffraction grating. (See Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\).)
CONNECTIONS: WAVES
All microscopic particles, whether massless, like photons, or having mass, like electrons, have wave properties. The relationship between momentum and wavelength is fundamental for all particles.
De Broglie’s proposal of a wave nature for all particles initiated a remarkably productive era in which the foundations for quantum mechanics were laid. In 1926, the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) published four papers in which the wave nature of particles was treated explicitly with wave equations. At the same time, many others began important work. Among them was German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) who, among many other contributions to quantum mechanics, formulated a mathematical treatment of the wave nature of matter that used matrices rather than wave equations. De Broglie’s work—recognition of the universal nature of wave-particle duality, as expressed in de Broglie wavelength—was a watershed for the development of quantum mechanics. De Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1929 for his vision, as were Davisson and G. P. Thomson in 1937 for their experimental verification of de Broglie’s hypothesis.
Example \(\PageIndex{1}\): Electron Wavelength versus Velocity and Energy
For an electron having a de Broglie wavelength of 0.167 nm (appropriate for interacting with crystal lattice structures that are about this size): (a) Calculate the electron’s velocity, assuming it is nonrelativistic. (b) Calculate the electron’s kinetic energy in eV.
Strategy
For part (a), since the de Broglie wavelength is given, the electron’s velocity can be obtained from \(\lambda=h / p\) by using the nonrelativistic formula for momentum, \(p=m v\). For part (b), once \(v\) is obtained (and it has been verified that \(v\) is nonrelativistic), the classical kinetic energy is simply \((1 / 2) m v^{2}\).
Solution for (a)
Substituting the nonrelativistic formula for momentum (\(p=m v\)) into the de Broglie wavelength gives
\[\lambda=\frac{h}{p}=\frac{h}{m v}. \nonumber\]
Solving for \(v\) gives
\[v=\frac{h}{m \lambda}. \nonumber\]
Substituting known values yields
\[v=\frac{6.63 \times 10^{-34} \mathrm{~J} \cdot \mathrm{s}}{\left(9.11 \times 10^{-31} \mathrm{~kg}\right)\left(0.167 \times 10^{-9} \mathrm{~m}\right)}=4.36 \times 10^{6} \mathrm{~m} / \mathrm{s}. \nonumber\]
Solution for (b)
While fast compared with a car, this electron’s speed is not highly relativistic, and so we can comfortably use the classical formula to find the electron’s kinetic energy and convert it to eV as requested.
\[\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{KE} &=\frac{1}{2} m v^{2} \\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left(9.11 \times 10^{-31} \mathrm{~kg}\right)\left(4.36 \times 10^{6} \mathrm{~m} / \mathrm{s}\right)^{2} \\
&=\left(8.66 \times 10^{-18} \mathrm{~J}\right)\left(\frac{1 ~\mathrm{eV}}{1.602 \times 10^{-19} \mathrm{~J}}\right) \\
&=54.05 ~\mathrm{eV}
\end{aligned} \nonumber\]
Discussion
This low energy means that these 0.167-nm electrons could be obtained by accelerating them through a 54.0-V electrostatic potential, an easy task. The results also confirm the assumption that the electrons are nonrelativistic, since their velocity is just over 1% of the speed of light and the kinetic energy is about 0.01% of the rest energy of an electron (0.511 MeV). If the electrons had turned out to be relativistic, we would have had to use more involved calculations employing relativistic formulas.
Electron Microscopes
One consequence or use of the wave nature of matter is found in the electron microscope. As we have discussed, there is a limit to the detail observed with any probe having a wavelength. Resolution, or observable detail, is limited to about one wavelength. Since a potential of only 54 V can produce electrons with sub-nanometer wavelengths, it is easy to get electrons with much smaller wavelengths than those of visible light (hundreds of nanometers). Electron microscopes can, thus, be constructed to detect much smaller details than optical microscopes. (See Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\).)
There are basically two types of electron microscopes. The transmission electron microscope (TEM) accelerates electrons that are emitted from a hot filament (the cathode). The beam is broadened and then passes through the sample. A magnetic lens focuses the beam image onto a fluorescent screen, a photographic plate, or (most probably) a CCD (light sensitive camera), from which it is transferred to a computer. The TEM is similar to the optical microscope, but it requires a thin sample examined in a vacuum. However it can resolve details as small as 0.1 nm (\(10^{-10} \mathrm{~m}\)), providing magnifications of 100 million times the size of the original object. The TEM has allowed us to see individual atoms and structure of cell nuclei.
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) provides images by using secondary electrons produced by the primary beam interacting with the surface of the sample (see Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). The SEM also uses magnetic lenses to focus the beam onto the sample. However, it moves the beam around electrically to “scan” the sample in the x and y directions. A CCD detector is used to process the data for each electron position, producing images like the one at the beginning of this chapter. The SEM has the advantage of not requiring a thin sample and of providing a 3-D view. However, its resolution is about ten times less than a TEM.
Electrons were the first particles with mass to be directly confirmed to have the wavelength proposed by de Broglie. Subsequently, protons, helium nuclei, neutrons, and many others have been observed to exhibit interference when they interact with objects having sizes similar to their de Broglie wavelength. The de Broglie wavelength for massless particles was well established in the 1920s for photons, and it has since been observed that all massless particles have a de Broglie wavelength \(\lambda=h / p\) The wave nature of all particles is a universal characteristic of nature, and the de Broglie wavelength gives insight into two additional quantum mechanical ideas we will look at: the uncertainty principle (the idea that it is fundamentally and theoretically impossible to measure momentum and position of a particle precisely) and the Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom. The de Broglie wavelength relationship is the gateway connecting the wave nature (wavelength) of all particles with their particle nature (momentum).
Section Summary
- Particles of matter also have a wavelength, called the de Broglie wavelength, given by \(\lambda=\frac{h}{p}\), where \(p\) is momentum.
- The de Broglie relationship between wavelength and momentum is universally applicable to all particles and waves.
- Matter is found to have the same interference characteristics as any other wave.
Glossary
- de Broglie wavelength
- the wavelength possessed by a particle of matter, calculated by \(\lambda=h / p\)


9.9: Oxygen
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
Ions are not the only materials that are dissolved in seawater. The oceans also contain dissolved gases that are very important to living organisms, particularly oxygen (O 2 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and nitrogen (N 2 ). Oxygen is required for respiration in marine plants, algae, and phytoplankton (the primary producers) and animals. Carbon dioxide is utilized by the primary producers to power photosynthesis, a byproduct of which is oxygen. Nitrogen gas dissolved in the ocean is fixed by bacteria and converted into the forms required for primary production, such as nitrate and nitrite.
All of these gases are found in the atmosphere, and can enter the ocean by dissolving into the water at the ocean’s surface. But the amount of each gas in air is very different from the amount found in the ocean (Table 5.4.1).
[table id=6 /]
The amount of each gas that can dissolve in the ocean depends on the solubility and saturation of the gas in water. Solubility refers to the amount of a dissolved gas that the water can hold under a particular set of conditions, which are usually defined as 0 o C and 1 atmosphere of pressure. The solubility of a gas increases with increasing pressure, decreased temperature, and decreased salinity. Saturation refers to the amount of gas currently dissolved in the water, relative to the maximum possible content. If the water is undersaturated, more gas can dissolve. If the water is saturated or supersaturated, gas may be released. Most atmospheric gases are saturated in the ocean, but O 2 and CO 2 are not saturated because they are rapidly used by living organisms.
Oxygen
Typical oceanic dissolved oxygen profiles are shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\). The shape of the profile is determined by the various processes that add or remove oxygen from the water at different depths.
Oxygen content is highest at the surface for two main reasons; this is where oxygen dissolves into the ocean from the atmosphere, and the surface water is where oxygen is produced by phytoplankton through photosynthesis. Respiration is also occurring in the surface waters, but the rate of photosynthetic oxygen production is greater than the rate of removal through respiration. It should be noted that even though dissolved oxygen is highest at the surface, there is still far less oxygen in the water than is found in the air. Well-oxygenated surface water may only contain around 8 mg O 2 /l, while the air contains 210 mg O 2 /l.
As depth increases, dissolved oxygen declines, reaching a minimum between a few hundred meters and 1000 m deep, the aptly-named oxygen minimum layer . At these depths and below, the water is too far removed from the surface for any atmospheric exchange, and there is not enough light to support photosynthesis, so there is little if any oxygen added to the water. At the same time, oxygen is removed from the water through the respiration of deep water organisms, and the decomposition of organic material by bacteria as it sinks to depth.
Below the oxygen minimum layer there is often an increase in dissolved oxygen at the greatest depths (Figures 5.4.1, 5.4.2). This bottom water is usually colder than the surface water and is under enormous pressure; as stated above, lower temperatures and higher pressure increase the solubility of dissolved gases. But there is another reason that bottom water contains more oxygen than mid-water depths that has to do with the way water circulates throughout the deep ocean (see section 9.8). In polar regions, the cold surface water absorbs lots of oxygen. This cold, oxygen-rich water sinks to the bottom due to its high density, taking the oxygen with it. The oxygen-rich bottom water will then spend the next thousand years or so moving over the seafloor throughout the major ocean basins. This deep water circulation is the source of oxygen for bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms. The oxygen-rich bottom water forms in the polar regions of the Atlantic, and slowly makes its way to the Pacific, with oxygen being removed for respiration along the way. This is why dissolved oxygen levels in Pacific deep water are generally lower than in the Atlantic (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)).
Areas where dissolved oxygen levels are too low to support most life are referred to as hypoxic zones (they are experiencing hypoxia , or low oxygen). Hypoxia is usually defined as oxygen levels below 2 mg/L. Anoxic zones (anoxia = without oxygen) show more severe forms of hypoxia, with oxygen below 0.5 mg/L. Some parts of the oceans may experience seasonal or temporary periods of hypoxia, while in other areas these conditions may last much longer. These hypoxic conditions often lead to mass die-offs of marine organisms who struggle to survive without sufficient oxygen.
Additional links for more information:
- NOAA site on oceanic hypoxic zones: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/hypoxia/


7.2: Operations Management in Service Industry
selected template will load here
This action is not available.
Learning Objectives
As the U.S. economy has changed from a goods producer to a service provider, the predominance of the manufacturing sector has declined substantially over the last sixty years. Today, only about 9 percent of U.S. workers are employed in manufacturing, in contrast to 30 percent in 1950 (The Global Language Monitor, 2010; Strauss, 2010). Most of us now hold jobs in the service sector, which accounts for 77 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (International Monetary Fund, 2010; Wikipedia, 2011). Wal-Mart is now America’s largest employer, followed by IBM, United Parcel Service (UPS), McDonald’s, and Target. Not until we drop down to the seventh-largest employer—Hewlett Packard—do we find a company with even a manufacturing component (24/7 Wall Street, 2011).


3: Music and Characterization
Music may have originally developed for the purpose of communication, and it has become a powerful tool in the telling of stories. Over the next four chapters, we will explore ways in which music has been used to convey, enhance, or transform stories in a variety of cultural contexts.
Most storytellers use music with great care. They do so because it is powerful. Music can help to set the mood in a video game, or allow a character on stage to express emotion by singing, or add interest and gravity to the recitation of an epic poem. It can encourage an audience member to get more involved in a performance, either emotionally or by joining in with the music-making. It can help a listener to remember the words to a story. And it can “say” things that go beyond words and images.
Music is used to tell stories in many different ways. Sometimes it accompanies images, such as in a film. Sometimes it is combined with stage action, as in ballets and musicals. Sometimes it is paired with a text, which might be sung or provided to the listener to read. Of course, we can choose to hear a story in any piece of music, and we will encounter examples later in this book that seem as if they must be communicating something , even if we can’t say exactly what it is. In the next four chapters, however, we will examine pieces of music that are used to tell clearly defined stories, and we will focus on understanding how music enriches and impacts those stories.
-
- 3.2: John Williams - Star Wars
- You probably already have a wealth of associations with the Star Wars soundtrack—both personal and general—as a result of having watched these films. On the personal level, you might find that this music evokes nostalgic memories of watching Star Wars with your family as a child, or it might make you uncomfortable if you found the films particularly scary or sad. Here, we will focus on objective characteristics of the music that help us to explain how it enhances the story.
-
- 3.3: Richard Wagner - The Valkyrie
- Most operas employ an orchestra to accompany the stage performers, who often sing throughout. While Richard Wagner’s style and melodies certainly influenced Williams’s work, we will focus here on Williams’s use of a technique that Wagner perfected: the technique of assigning a unique theme to each character, object, place, and idea in a drama. Wagner called such a theme a leitmotif.
-
- 3.6: Ragtime and Dixieland Jazz
- We will consider one more of Williams’s borrowings. This time, however, we will be giving primary consideration to style, for Williams was influenced by a pair of musical traditions—specifically, those of ragtime and Dixieland jazz—rather than by a specific composition. Before we can examine the borrowing, however, we need to take a step back and consider the different ways in which music works in film.


32: Plant Reproduction
Plant reproduction in plants can be accomplished via either sexual or asexual mechanisms. Sexual reproduction produces offspring by the fusion of gametes, resulting in offspring genetically different from the parent or parents. Asexual reproduction produces new individuals without the fusion of gametes, genetically identical to the parent plants and each other, except when mutations occur. In seed plants, the offspring can be packaged in a protective seed, which is used as an agent of dispersal.
-
- 32.0: Prelude to Plant Reproduction
- Plants have evolved different reproductive strategies for the continuation of their species. Some plants reproduce sexually, and others asexually, in contrast to animal species, which rely almost exclusively on sexual reproduction. Plant sexual reproduction usually depends on pollinating agents, while asexual reproduction is independent of these agents. Flowers are often the showiest or most strongly scented part of plants.
-
- 32.1: Reproductive Development and Structure
- Sexual reproduction takes place with slight variations in different groups of plants. Plants have two distinct stages in their lifecycle: the gametophyte stage and the sporophyte stage. The haploid gametophyte produces the male and female gametes by mitosis in distinct multicellular structures. Fusion of the male and females gametes forms the diploid zygote, which develops into the sporophyte.
-
- 32.2: Pollination and Fertilization
- Pollination takes two forms: self-pollination and cross-pollination. Self-pollination occurs when the pollen from the anther is deposited on the stigma of the same flower, or another flower on the same plant. Cross-pollination is the transfer of pollen from the anther of one flower to the stigma of another flower on a different individual of the same species. Self-pollination occurs in flowers where the stamen and carpel mature at the same time.
-
- 32.3: Asexual Reproduction
- Many plants are able to propagate themselves using asexual reproduction. This method does not require the investment required to produce a flower, attract pollinators, or find a means of seed dispersal. Asexual reproduction produces plants that are genetically identical to the parent plant because no mixing of male and female gametes takes place. Traditionally, these plants survive well under stable environmental conditions when compared with plants produced from sexual reproduction.


5.6: The acceleration due to gravity
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
If you have studied some physics before reading this textbook, you may have been surprised by our choice of dimension for \(g\) to be force per unit mass rather than acceleration. This is indeed an unconventional choice as \(g\) is usually presented as “the acceleration due to Earth’s gravity” instead of the “strength of Earth’s gravitational field”. Our choice comes from the potential difference between inertial mass, \(m_I\) , and gravitational mass, \(m_G\) , which we distinguish in this section.
Consider the simple model of a mass falling freely near the surface of the Earth in the absence of air-resistance. The only force exerted on the mass is its weight, \(m_G\vec g\) , which is given in terms of gravitational mass (the mass that determines how an object experiences gravity). Both the weight and the acceleration of the object point downwards. The free-body diagram for the mass is shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\), where the \(y\) axis was chosen to be vertically upwards (co-linear with the acceleration).
Writing out the \(y\) component of Newton’s Second Law, being careful to distinguish between inertial and gravitational mass, and noting that both the weight and the acceleration are in the negative \(y\) direction:
\[\begin{aligned} \sum F_y = -F_g &= -m_I a\\[4pt] \therefore m_Gg &= m_I a\end{aligned}\]
This makes it clear that \(g\) is not necessarily the acceleration due to gravity. It is only the acceleration due to gravity in the limit that the inertial and gravitational masses are the same. If \(m_G=m_I\) , then we have:
\[\begin{aligned} a = g\end{aligned}\]
and indeed, the acceleration of objects near the surface of the Earth has a magnitude of \(g\) . It is also clear that the dimensions of \(g\) can also be written as an acceleration, and in most cases, one writes that, near the surface of the Earth, \(g=9.8\text{m/s}^{2}\) . You should however remember that this is only true when inertial and gravitational masses are the same, and that \(g\) really should be thought of as the strength of the gravitational field, not as an acceleration.


1.10: A Conclusion and a Beginning
If you are new to astronomy, you have probably reached the end of our brief tour in this chapter with mixed emotions. On the one hand, you may be fascinated by some of the new ideas you’ve read about and you may be eager to learn more. On the other hand, you may be feeling a bit overwhelmed by the number of topics we have covered, and the number of new words and ideas we have introduced. Learning astronomy is a little like learning a new language: at first it seems there are so many new expressions that you’ll never master them all, but with practice, you soon develop facility with them.
At this point you may also feel a bit small and insignificant, dwarfed by the cosmic scales of distance and time. But, there is another way to look at what you have learned from our first glimpses of the cosmos. Let us consider the history of the universe from the Big Bang to today and compress it, for easy reference, into a single year. (We have borrowed this idea from Carl Sagan’s 1977 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Dragons of Eden .)
On this scale, the Big Bang happened at the first moment of January 1, and this moment, when you are reading this chapter would be the end of the very last second of December 31. When did other events in the development of the universe happen in this “cosmic year?” Our solar system formed around September 10, and the oldest rocks we can date on Earth go back to the third week in September (Figure 1.15).
Where does the origin of human beings fall during the course of this cosmic year? The answer turns out to be the evening of December 31. The invention of the alphabet doesn’t occur until the fiftieth second of 11:59 p.m. on December 31. And the beginnings of modern astronomy are a mere fraction of a second before the New Year. Seen in a cosmic context, the amount of time we have had to study the stars is minute, and our success in piecing together as much of the story as we have is remarkable.
Certainly our attempts to understand the universe are not complete. As new technologies and new ideas allow us to gather more and better data about the cosmos, our present picture of astronomy will very likely undergo many changes. Still, as you read our current progress report on the exploration of the universe, take a few minutes every once in a while just to savor how much you have already learned.