Conditioned Stimulus Conditioned Response Essay Example for Free

Conditioned Stimulus Conditioned Response Essay This experiment showed that Albert developed a fear of a white rat through associating a neutral stimulus with a fear provoking stimulus. However some individuals may have inherited a high level of physiological reactivity. The extent to which the individual is classically conditioned to a neutral stimulus could be determined by this physiological reactivity. In addition, animal phobia is more likely to become classically conditioned because there is preparedness for survival from the EEA, other stimuli may not become classically conditioned. Davison found phobias of neutral stimuli cannot be easily conditioned as Alberts experiment suggested; he tried to condition phobias of neutral stimuli in a laboratory but had little success. However being in an experimental setting may have prevented the participants from behaving naturally; therefore the fear was not conditioned. The behaviourist concept of stimulus generalising suggest that a fear response to one thing can be generalised to other things, and as predicted by the behavioural concept Albert generalised the phobia of white rats to other furry white objects such as cotton wool, fur and white beards. However his reactivity may predispose him to the anxious disorder. Due to Albert being a child he may have developed his fear of the rat because he was immediately able to recognise the appearance of the animal is least like a human, he feared other objects that were similar to the rat because he developed a cognitive bias unconsciously. Also the research evidence on phobias being a result of traumatic experiences lacks reliability, as shown by Davison it is difficult to replicate Watson and Rayners experiment; although it was found 50% of people suffering from certain phobias recalled a traumatic experience that had triggered their phobia, therefore supporting classical conditioning. The other 50% of phobics that cannot recall an unpleasant experience initiating their phobia could be due to repression of the expression. The development of phobias can also be explained by Mowrers two-process theory, this involves operant conditioning. The first stage of the process involves classical conditioning, for example linking the white rat and the loud noise. The second stage of the theory involves operant conditioning as avoidance of the phobic stimulus reduces the fear response and is thus reinforcing, therefore the fear is maintained and a phobia is developed. Behavioural explanations are reductionist; they oversimplify concepts to one specific thing and ignore other factors. The explanation is also deterministic because it suggests behaviour is controlled by the environment and ignores the individuals own ability to control their behaviour. Social learning theory explains fear as not being intentional, the learning of the fear happens at an unconscious cognitive level. Evidence of modelling was found in monkeys that observed other monkeys displaying a fearful reaction to a snake; these monkeys developed a phobia of snakes because it is a harmful stimulus. Bandura proposed phobias can be learnt through observational learning, modelling and direct reinforcement. There are other psychological explanations of anxious disorders. The cognitive explanation suggests faulty thinking is the cause of phobias. Beck and Emery conceded that anxious people avail cognitive biases, which causes them exaggerate the threats posed by stimuli. This has face validity because phobics have reported high level of anxiety and it is plausible that phobics find their environment a threatening place. Clarks cognitive theory of panic disorder suggests individuals suffering from panic disorder tend to interpret their bodily functions over sensitively i.e. they react to their bodily functions in a life-threatening way. This makes them more anxious and increases their catastrophic thoughts. However it cannot be identified if cognitive biases are the cause of phobias or if the phobias are the cause of the individuals cognitive biases. Also the over consciousness of bodily response could be due to physiological reactivity of the individual and it maybe the underlying cause of the fear. The explanation is description rather than explanatory; it describes the thought patterns of the individual but does not explain why the individual is having these thought patterns. The social explanation is another psychological explanation of anxiety disorders. According to this explanation parental rearing styles have an impact on the development of phobias. It has been found that parental styles that are high in control and overprotection and low in affection are linked to social phobia and agoraphobia. However accounts of parental styles are retrospective. Another limitation is all that has been obtained is correlations between rearing styles and anxiety disorders, correlations do not prove causality. There is evidence that phobics experience more serious life events before the onset of the anxiety disorder, in Kleiner and Marshalls study, 84% of agoraphobics reported to have experienced family problems prior to their first panic attack. Finlay and Brown found a difference between anxious and depressed patients in terms of life events they had experienced in the 12 months prior to the onset of their disorder. Both groups had experienced an above average number of life events, but anxious patients tended to have experienced danger events, whereas depressed patients experienced loss events. However life events may be a factor of variables that developed the disorders. In conclusion the behavioural explanation claims phobias are developed as a result of classical and operant conditioning, this is called the two-process theory. The experiment with Albert demonstrated classical conditioning. However, research indicates that phobias do not depend on having previously encountered a frightening situation, and individuals that have experienced frightening encounters do not necessarily develop a phobia. Social learning theory is a behavioural explanation that may apply to some specific phobias. The cognitive explanation suggests that the individual suffering from the phobia have cognitive biases which cause the individual to exaggerate the threat posed by the stimuli. Some individuals may react to their bodily responses in a catastrophic way more than other individuals because they have a higher physiological reactivity. The social explanation can be used to explain the development of phobias through parental rearing styles and life events. The main problem with obtaining information about parental rearing styles may be the individual perceives the style differently from how it actually was. The main problem with obtaining information on life events is that it was in the past the so remembering them may be distorted and some events may have been forgotten. All three accounts of psychological explanations can be used to describe the development of phobias; however there are other explanations of anxiety disorders that are not psychological such as the evolutionary explanation. According to preparedness argument phobias are adaptive because they are a fear of things that would have been a threat to humans in the EEA. The evolutionary explanation is a counter perspective of the conditioning explanation and may explain why replications of Watson and Rayners experiment failed to condition phobias to neutral stimuli.

Leadership Case Study of Ernest Shackleton Essay examples -- The Leade

The topic of this leadership case study is Ernest Shackleton. This paper will identify the development of Shackleton's leadership skills, provide examples and reflections of his abilities, and relate how he played an essential role in one of history's greatest survival stories. This study of Shackleton's leadership is set loosely within the framework of the five practices of exemplary leadership set forth in The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner, and will focus on the benefits produced by his management of team morale and unity (13). Kouzes and Posner remark that leadership experiences are ?voyages of discovery and adventures of a lifetime?[and] they are challenging explorations under rigorous conditions? (174). While this may be true, it is often in an extreme crisis situation that leadership is ultimately tested. This is the circumstance that Shackleton faced with his crew of twenty-seven, while stranded in the ice floes off the Antarctic Continent. Credit is due to the leadership of Ernest Shackleton; every member aboard the Endurance survived, and was finally rescued after six hundred and thirty-four days. Shackleton said of leadership, ?If you?re a leader, a fellow that other fellows look to, you?ve got to keep going? (qtd. in Morrell and Capparell 215). Synopsis of the Endurance Expedition?See Appendix (Pages 19-21) The Endurance, the vessel carrying the men and the title of the expedition, was named by Shackleton after his family motto?Fortitudine Vincimus (By endurance we conquer) (Perkins 41). To relate the significant factors of Shackleton?s leadership during the Endurance expedition, it is necessary to summarize the timeline of the events. A chronological timeline of the expedition is included at the end of this paper. The saga of the Endurance has relevant lessons for today?s leaders concerning the vital nature of team unity and interdependence, risk taking, optimism, and selfless leadership. Shackleton, known as ?The Boss? to his men, was at all times responsible for fostering and developing these dynamics, and thus provides an example of the remarkable achievements that are possible in even the direst of situations. The expedition failed in its attempt to be the first to transverse the Antarctic, yet the ultimate success is judged by the safe return of all the crewmembers. The events of the Endurance expedition wer... ... all his leadership strategies for the purpose of getting every man home alive. The loyalty and trust that Shackleton inspired in his men is undeniable. In 1921, five years after the rescue, Shackleton set out again on his last expedition aboard the Quest. Remarkably, his eighteen-member crew was comprised of eight Endurance colleagues, including Wild and Worsley (Morrell and Capparell 208). Following Shackleton?s death, Wild summed up the feelings he had for his leader: I have served with Scott, Shackleton, and Mawson, and have met Nansen, Amundsen, Peary, Cook, and other explorers, and in my considered opinion, for all the best points of leadership, coolness in the face of danger, resource under difficulties, quickness in decisions, never-failing optimism, and the faculty of instilling the same into others, remarkable genius for organization, consideration for those under him, and obliteration of self, the palm must be given to Shackleton, a hero and a gentleman in very truth. --Frank Wild, crew member, Nimrod; second in command, Endurance and Quest. (qtd. in Morrell and Capparell 205)

Analysis of “The Shield of Achilles” Essay

The Shield of Achilles is a poem of nine stanzas where the author W.H.Auden has used an episode from the famous Homeric epic ‘Iliad’, as the name suggests. Achilles as we know was the greatest hero of the Trojan War and his shield as mentioned here has its reference in the book eighteen of the Iliad. There Thetis, the sea goddess and Achilles’ mother requests Hephaestus the divine blacksmith to make a shield for Achilles whose armor has been taken away by the Trojan hero Hector when he killed Patroclus to whom Achilles had lent it. Auden here has narrated the episode of the Iliad where this shield is in the making. Interestingly unlike the epical shield which was decorated by Hephaestus with stars and constellation, two beautiful towns full of people, scene of cultivation, a vineyard laden with grapes, herd of cattle, dancing girls and boys, the shield in question presents a scene of lifelessness, destruction and decadence of a moribund society of people. The poem starts with an unnamed woman and a man whom we later identify as Thetis and Hephaestus. She is looking over his shoulder to watch the shield which is being made there. Contrary to her expectations she finds the shield being decorated with barbed wire enclosures and bored officials, weary sentries, detached and dispassionate men folk, a weed-choked-field and a frustrated young boy who knows nothing about love being always exposed to murder and rape. In the poem whenever Thetis peers over the blacksmith’s shoulder hoping to see some beautiful decoration of natural beauty being embossed on the shield, some morbid spectacle is sure to greet her eyes. Finally when Hephaestus leaves after finishing the shield, Thetis is distraught to find a horrific picture which makes Achilles’ doom all the more evident. The poet has used a method of flashback to emphasize the deplorable condition of the modern human society. Whenever Thetis looks over ‘his shoulder’ Auden gives us a glimpse of the beauty of the past by mentioning what she expects to see and what gruesome sights unfold before her. The poem shows a contrast between the ancient world of real heroes and the modern world of debasement. The poet W. H. Auden thus uses the shield of Achilles as a subject but all the beautiful descriptions of Homer have been replaced to show the poet’s disgust with blankness and  shallowness of the modern society.

Biblical Analysis Of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein

Alexandria Harris Mrs. Mitchell AP Literature 16 November 2015 Biblical Analysis: Frankenstein Frankenstein by Mary Shelley often refers to the bible on a number of occasions. However, it is worth noting that many references used by Mary Shelley in Frankenstein can often be identified in Genesis. Much like Genesis, the story of Frankenstein is a viable creation story. The book of Genesis first explains the creation of man and woman, and also recounts the fall of humanity. Unlike Genesis, Frankenstein begins with the fall of humanity, leading into the creation of man. Although it would be simple to compare the novel to such non-religious terms, the religious symbolism cannot be ignored in Frankenstein. Many biblical references within Frankenstein refer to the creation story in the first book of Genesis. â€Å"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you† (Genesis 3: 17-19). In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are punished for taking from the tree of knowledge. The event that is presented in Genesis involving Adam and Eve strongly correlates to the first volume of Frankenstein. Driven by his mother’s death, Frankenstein looks to science in order to combat the death and illness that surrounds him. His acquisition of this scientifical knowledge leads to the creation of a horrible being. By creating life, he is able to attain the knowledge andShow MoreRelatedFrankenstein Literary Analysis : The Creator And His Creation1752 Words   |  8 PagesLucas Shelton Mr. Small English 12 3 March 2015 Frankenstein Literary Analysis: The Creator and his Creation â€Å"I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel† (Shelley 87). In the popular novel Frankenstein, author Mary Shelley examines difficult questions regarding the creation of life and the shortcomings of mankind. The narrative is centered around a young scientist by the name of Victor Frankenstein, whose unrelenting pursuit of knowledge leads him into the most dangerous experimentRead MoreCreation: Scientifically Proven? Essay1537 Words   |  7 PagesIn the book Evolutionary Creation in Biblical and Theological Perspective written by Dan Lioy it is clear some Christians tie biological evolution to religious belief. Lioy contemplates the idea of a God who creates evolutionary changes supernaturally only changing things for his purpose (10). We had a religious and scientific strife for many years; one of these was the bible vs. evolution debate called The Scopes (monkey) Trials of July 21 1925. As Judith S. Baughman writes inThe Scopes Trial

The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible Part 1, Creation

Ivan IV of Russias oprichnina is frequently portrayed as some sort of hell, a time of mass torture and death overseen by sinister black-robed monks  who obeyed their insane Tsar Ivan the Terrible and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The reality is somewhat different, and although the events that created—and eventually ended—the oprichnina are well known, the underlying motives and causes are still unclear. The Creation of the Oprichnina In the final months of 1564, Tsar Ivan IV of Russia announced an intention to abdicate; he promptly left Moscow with much of his treasure and only a few trusted retainers. They went to Alekandrovsk, a small, but fortified, town to the north where Ivan isolated himself. His only contact with Moscow was through two letters: the first attacking the boyars and the church, and a second reassuring the people of Muscovy that he still cared for them. The boyars were the most powerful non-royal aristocrats in Russia at this time, and they had long disagreed with the ruling family. Ivan may not have been overly popular with the ruling classes - numerous rebellions had been plotted - but without him a struggle for power was inevitable, and a civil war probable. Ivan had already had success and turned the Grand Prince of Moscow into Tsar of All the Russias, and Ivan was asked - some might say begged - to return, but the Tsar made several clear demands: he wanted to create an oprichnina, a territory within Muscovy governed solely and absolutely by him. He also wanted the power to deal with traitors as he wished. Under pressure from the church and the people, the Council of Boyars agreed. Where was the Oprichnina? Ivan returned and divided the country into two: the oprichnina and the zemschina. The former was to be his private domain, constructed from any land and property he wished and run by his own administration, the oprichniki. Estimates vary, but between one third and one half of Muscovy became oprichnina. Situated mainly in the north, this land was a piecemeal selection of wealthy and important areas, ranging from whole towns, of which the oprichnina included about 20, to individual buildings. Moscow was carved up street by street, and sometimes building by building. Existing landowners were often evicted, and their fates varied from resettlement to execution. The rest of Muscovy became the zemschina, which continued to operate under the existing governmental and legal institutions, with a puppet Grand Prince in charge.   Why Create an Oprichnina? Some narratives portray Ivans flight and threat to abdicate as a fit of pique, or a form of madness stemming from his wifes death in 1560. It is more likely that these actions were a shrewd political trick, albeit tinged with paranoia, designed to give Ivan the bargaining power he needed to rule absolutely. By using his two letters to attack the leading boyars and churchman while also praising the populace, the Tsar had placed great pressure on his would-be opponents, who now faced the possibility of losing public support. This gave Ivan leverage, which he used to create a whole new realm of government. If Ivan had been acting simply out of madness, he was brilliantly opportunistic.The actual creation of the oprichnina has been viewed in many ways: an isolated kingdom where Ivan could rule by fear, a concerted effort to destroy the Boyars and seize their wealth, or even as an experiment in governing. In practice, the creation of this realm gave Ivan the chance to solidify his power. By seizing strategic and wealthy land the Tsar could employ his own army and bureaucracy while reducing the strength of his boyar opponents. Loyal members of the lower classes could be promoted, rewarded with new oprichnina land, and given the task of working against traitors. Ivan was able to tax the zemschina and overrule its institutions, while the oprichniki could travel through the whole of the country at will.But did Ivan intend this? During the 1550s and early 1560s, the Tsars power had come under attack from boyar plots, failure in the Livonian war, and his own temperament. Ivan had fallen ill in 1553 and ordered the ruling boyars to swear oaths of loyalty to his baby son, Dimitrii; several refused, favoring Prince Vladimir Staritsky instead. When the Tsarina died in 1560 Ivan suspected poison, and two of the Tsars previously loyal advisors were subjected to a rigged trial and sent away to their deaths. This situation began to spiral, and as Ivan was growing to hate the boya rs, so his allies were growing concerned with him. Some began to defect, culminating in 1564 when Prince ​Andery Kurbsky, one of the Tsars leading military commanders, fled to Poland.br/>Clearly, these events could be interpreted as either contributing to vengeful and paranoid destruction, or indicating a need for political manipulation. However, when Ivan came to the throne in 1547, after a chaotic and boyar led regency, the Tsar immediately introduced reforms aimed at reorganizing the country, to strengthen both the military and his own power. The oprichnina could well have been a rather extreme extension of this policy. Equally, he could have gone completely mad. The Oprichniki The oprichniki played a central role in Ivans oprichnina; they were the soldiers and ministers, the police and the bureaucrats. Drawn mainly from the lower levels of the military and society, each member was questioned and their past checked. Those that passed were rewarded with land, property and payments. The result was a cadre of individuals whose loyalty to the Tsar was without question, and which included very few boyars. Their numbers grew from 1000 to 6000 between 1565 - 72, and included some foreigners. The oprichniks precise role is unclear, partly because it changed over time, and partly because historians have very few contemporary records from which to work. Some commentators call them bodyguards, while others see them as a new, hand-picked, nobility designed to replace the boyars. The oprichniks have even been described as the original Russian secret police, an ancestor of the KGB. The oprichniki are often described in semi-mythical terms, and its easy to see why. They dressed in black: black clothes, black horses and black carriages. They used the broom and the dogs head as their symbols, one representing the sweeping away of traitors, and the other snapping at the heels of their enemies; it is possible that some oprichniks carried actual brooms and severed dogs heads. Answerable only to Ivan and their own commanders, these individuals had free run of the country, oprichnina and zemschina, and a prerogative to remove traitors. Although they sometimes used false charges and forged documents, as in the case of Prince Staritsky who was executed after his cook confessed, this was normally unnecessary. Having created a climate of fear and murder, the oprichniki could just exploit the human propensity to inform on enemies; besides, this black clad corps could kill anyone they wished. The Terror The stories associated with the oprichniks range from the grotesque and outlandish, to the equally grotesque and factual. People were impaled and mutilated, while whipping, torture and rapes were common. The Oprichniki Palace features in many tales: Ivan built this in Moscow, and the dungeons were supposedly full of prisoners, of which at least twenty were tortured to death everyday in front of the laughing Tsar. The actual height of this terror is well documented. In 1570 Ivan and his men attacked the city of Novgorod, which the Tsar believed was planning to ally with Lithuania. Using forged documents as a pretext, thousands were hanged, drowned or deported, while the buildings and countryside were plundered and destroyed. Estimates of the death toll vary between 15,000 and 60,000 people. A similar, but less brutal, sacking of Pskov followed this, as did the execution of zemschina officials in Moscow.Ivan alternated between periods of savagery and piety, often sending great memorial payments and treasure to monasteries. During one such period the Tsar endowed a new monastic order, which was to draw its brothers from the oprichniks. Although this foundation did not turn the oprichniki into a corrupted church of sadistic monks (as some accounts might claim), it did became an instrument interwoven in both church and state, further blurring the organisations role. The oprichniks also acquired a reputation in the rest of Europe. Prince Kurbsky, who had fled Muscovy in 1564, described them as children of darkness...hundreds and thousands of times worse than hangmen.Like most organizations that rule through terror, the oprichniki also began to cannibalize itself. Internal quarrels and rivalries led many oprichniki leaders to accuse each other of treason, and increasing numbers of zemschina officials were drafted in as replacements. Leading Muscovite families attempted to join, seeking protection through membership. Perhaps crucially, the oprichniki did not act in a p ure orgy of bloodshed; they achieved motives and aims in a calculating and cruel manner.br/> The End of the Oprichniki After the attacks on Novgorod and Pskov Ivan may well have turned his attention to Moscow, however, other forces got there first. In 1571 an army of Crimean Tartars devastated the city, burning large tracts of land and enslaving tens of thousands of people. With the oprichnina having clearly failed to defend the country, and growing number of oprichniks implicated in treachery, Ivan abolished it in 1572. The resulting process of reintegration was never entirely completed, as Ivan created other similar bodies throughout his life; none became as notorious as the oprichnina. Consequences of the Oprichniki The Tartar attack highlighted the damage that the oprichnina had caused. The boyars were the political, economic and social heart of Muscovy, and by undermining their power and resources the Tsar began to destroy the infrastructure of his country. Trade decreased and the divided military became ineffectual against other troops. Constant changes in government caused internal chaos, while the skilled and peasant classes began to leave Muscovy, driven out by rising taxes and almost indiscriminate murder. Some areas had become so depopulated that agriculture collapsed, and the Tsars external enemies had begun to exploit these weaknesses. The Tartars attacked Moscow again in 1572, but were comprehensively beaten by a newly reintegrated army; this was a small valediction of Ivans change in policy.What did the oprichnina ultimately achieve? It helped centralise power around the Tsar, creating a rich and strategic network of personal holdings through which Ivan could challenge the old nobili ty and create a loyal government. Land confiscation, exile and execution shattered the boyars, and the oprichniki formed a new nobility: although some land was returned after 1572, much of it remained in the hands of the oprichniks. It is still a matter for debate among historians as to how much of this Ivan really intended. Conversely, the brutal enforcement of these changes and the constant pursuit of traitors did more than simply split the country in two. The population was markedly reduced, economic systems were damaged, and the strength of Moscow reduced in the eyes of its enemies.For all the talk of centralising political power and restructuring landed wealth, the oprichnina will always be remembered as a time of terror. The image of black clothed investigators with unaccountable power remains effective and haunting, while their use of cruel and brutal punishments has guaranteed them a nightmarish mythology, only enhanced by their monastic connections. The actions of the opric hnina, coupled with the lack of documentation, have also greatly affected the question of Ivans sanity. For many, the period 1565 - 72 suggests that he was paranoid and vindictive, although some prefer plain mad. Centuries later, Stalin praised the oprichnina for its role in damaging the boyar aristocracy and enforcing central government (and he knew a thing or two about oppressing and terror).   Source Bonney, Richard. The European Dynastic States 1494-1660. Short Oxford History of the Modern World, OUP Oxford, 1991.

Why The Tecumseh Historical Society Will Be My Greatest Asset

When working on this project I intend to utilize the materials that I already have available to me as a starting point. The Tecumseh Historical Society has an extensive amount of information on the Hayden family. Because of the amount of information I will have to then sort out the information that would not be useful toward my project, and then focus on the information that will enrich the project. The Historical Society may also have contact information to reach descendants of the Hayden family who might be willing to set up a time to perform an interview. For this project, I believe the Tecumseh Historical Society will be my greatest asset. When attempting to answer the question, I would first start to search through the archives to find the information that addresses my question I plan to break it into the three categories of Ford’s influence on the the local community, the economy, and the technology. In these categories I can break them up in the many different sub-categories as well. When answering my question of Henry Ford’s influence on the community, I plan on breaking it up in to several sub- categories as well. The categories that I would like to break economics into are the following: the mill, economy of the citizens, and economy of the city as a whole. One sources that I have is a newspaper article that discusses the involvement of Henry Ford allowing citizens of the city to have a career. When looking at the company, I have some budget plans before

When do you become an adult free essay sample

When do you become an adult? Is it by age or maturity. I believe you become an adult when you are fully mature not at the age of eighteen. Even though the age of eighteen is considered adulthood in forty-seven states, it doesnt mean you will act like one. What makes someone an adult is not their age, it is a period of prolonged adolescence or emerging adulthood. Adulthood lasts into your twenties. There are many responsibilities in adulthood, that many adults don’t even know how to react to them. Do you consider yourself an adult?I believe you become an adult when you can show you are mature enough for the responsibilities of adulthood. There are many different ages for being an adult in many different countries. For example, in Dutch children are allowed to drink at the age of sixteen and drive at the age of nineteen. We will write a custom essay sample on When do you become an adult? or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Adulthood means getting a job, moving away from your parents, getting married, and having children. There many different ages to take to becoming an adult. For example, you must twenty one to drink, eighteen to vote and join the military, seventeen to watch an adult movie, and fourteen to hold a job. Adults need to take responsibilities for themselves, make independent decisions, and to have financial independents. There are many steps to becoming an adult.Did you know that when you stop developing, you are physically an adult? Your brain stops developing in your mid-twenties. Many people over the age of eighteen, feel like they are still children. This is because adulthood and childhood are both social construction. Social construction is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world. In the 1950s and the 60s, people did not become adults in any kind of predictable way. Do you think the age eighteen is when you become an adult? If you said yes, many people agree with you. Many people think the age of eighteen is the age of adulthood because that is the age you can vote and join the military. At the age of eighteen, you receive a more independent life because you can move out, get a job, and live your life. Even though you become more independent at the age of eighteen, it comes with many responsibilities. Some responsibilities of being an adult are getting a job, moving out, getting married, and having kids. I do not think the age of eighteen is adulthood. Do you?Do you think adulthood comes with age or maturity? I believe adulthood comes with maturity. Adults can have the responsibilities of moving out, getting a job, getting married, having children, and just living your life. I do not think adulthood comes with age because many eighteen-year-olds are not mature enough to take on life’s responsibilities. There are many different ages for adults in different places but they all have something in common, they all must be mature enough to take on life’s responsibilities. â€Å"Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value’† Albert Einstein. I believe that adulthood comes with maturity, not age. Do you think the same way?