Bienvenido a Sprachgefühl Languages

IDIOMAS EN SU OFICINA EN MÉXICO, DF

Bienvenido y gracias por su interés en nuestro soporte para aprender inglés, español o portugués; usted adquirirá el vocabulario, estructuras, pronunciación y naturalidad que usted necesita para una comunicación efectiva en situaciones personales y profesionales.

Para mayor información por favor contáctenos al número telefónico 52 (55) 5259 2901 ; o al correo electrónico info@sprachgefuhl.com

Idiomas Real, S.C. México, D.F

“Behaviorism also called the learning perspective

 (where any physical action is a behavior), is a

philosophy of psychology based on the proposition

that all things which organisms do — including acting,

 thinking and feeling — can and should be regarded

as behaviors. This school of psychology maintains

that behaviors as such can be described scientifically

without resource either to internal physiological

events or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind”.

Everyone has heard the term behaviorism, right? If not, let me explain it with my own words: behaviorism is one the most well-known / famous / classical schools of psychology that says that our whole thinking, acting and feeling process can be quantified, proved and divided into many little behaviors (stimuli- response). This school is the responsible of the typical struggle of psychology to be considered a science.

I could spend days and days talking about the theoretical aspects of behaviorism, but my concern is something different… I wonder if ALL of our psychological processes can be divided into little-quantifiable-scientific-technical behaviors. Can we sort of “predict” behavior if we manipulate every possible variable?

First, a little background: behaviorism general premises are that all of our actions are conditioned somehow, classically or operationally. Classical conditioning conditions stimuli to natural reactions; for example, we have Pavlov’s famous experiment with the dogs: whenever they heard a bell they salivated, because every time he would feed the dogs, he rang the bell first. Operational conditioning is the one in which we “operate” on the environment to obtain something. For example, if I cheat in a quiz and I get an A+, probably I’ll do it again and again to get the same positive outcome.  

We also have the “black box” term, making reference to the airplanes black box (this little box in which all the airplane’s operations are registered) and used as an analogy to say that all the psychological processes are compared to a black box; in behaviorism, theorists only take into account the following:

Stimuli      à              Black box (mind)               à             Response

Easy, right? Behaviorists are only interested in the thing that causes behavior, and the following outcome; whatever happens in between (that is, let’s be honest, the difficult part!) they simply don’t care! Maybe that is why, nowadays, being 100% absolutely behaviorist is considered obsolete, and this psychological school is now paired with other kind of schools, such as the Cognitive Psychology. With this, we have the new and moderns kind of therapy “Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy”, in which the therapist and the patient try to identify all the “thinking” factors around the problem and see which thinking process is the one that causes the problem; then, they try to change this so-called “cognitive dissonances”.

So, what do you guys think about this? Do you think our behavior – thoughts – actions can be reduced to a simple black box symbol?

Some interesting courses at casa del lago,  Keep an eye on what’s coming each semester.  Enjoy! DR

I’m finishing my work at the office and I’m enjoying a glass (or 4) of Chardonnay. In celebration of my drinking problem and the wonderful drink that is Chardonnay, here’s an article about it:

Rich is the word that best both describes Chardonnay and explains its popularity. Its aroma is distinct, yet delicate, difficult to characterize, easier to recognize. It often smells like apples, lemons, peaches or tropical fruits. Its delicacy is such that even a small percentage of another varietal blended into a Chardonnay will often completely dominate its aroma and flavor. Oak commonly takes over Chardonnay if the wine is fermented or aged in new barrels or for too long in seasoned ones.

This delicacy also allows Chardonnay to absorb the influences of both vinification technique and appellation of origin. In the Chablis region of France, it is the only grape permitted and it renders a “crisp, flinty” wine. In the Meursault appellation, chardonnay takes on a lush, ripe, “fleshy”, “buttery” quality. Even in quality sparkling wines and French Champagne, it is the major varietal used. California Chardonnay is every bit as variable and possibly even more exciting because of the effusive varietal quality it develops there. In spite of this variety in style, Chardonnay is unmistakable in the mouth because of its impeccable sugar/acid balance, its full body, and its easy smoothness.

Researchers at the University of California at Davis used DNA profiling in 1999 to prove that Chardonnay originated as a cross of an obscure, ancient, and nearly extinct variety called gouais blanc with a member of the “pinot” family, quite likely pinot noir (although ampelographic research has not yet been able to pinpoint this).

Vineyards in France are commonly planted with an intermingling of chardonnay and pinot blanc vines, so that “pinot” has often been attached to chardonnay, incorrectly. In spite of its heritage, Chardonnay is not considered a member of the “pinot” grape family (pinot noir, pinot blanc, pinot gris, etc.). California has achieved real success growing chardonnay and popularity of its wine. It has also been a successful grape in Australia, where it also is sometimes misnamed “pinot chardonnay”.

Unfortunately, chardonnay vines are shy-bearing and susceptible to a myriad of maladies. Chardonnay berries are relatively small, thin-skinned, fragile, and oxidize easily. This makes chardonnay somewhat more sensitive to winemaking techniques and more difficult to handle from harvest to bottling than most other grape types.

Different wine making techniques also produce wide variances in the Chardonnay flavor profile. Such techniques as barrel fermentation, proportion of new to old cooperage, lees stirring, and partial, complete, or prevention of malolactic fermentation generate controversy and lively discussion among winemakers.

Chardonnay’s intrinsic blank canvas quality also allows its flavors to be dramatically affected by differences in soil, climate, and vineyard practices. Not uncommon among wine grapes, the chardonnay vine also has a tendency to mutate and research has identified over 400 clonal variants. Each clone has chardonnay family traits, but displays individually specific tendencies in such characteristics as length of ripening cycle, crop load, berry and cluster size, acid retention, etc., therefore producing wines with various flavor differences.

The widespread popularity of varietally-labeled Chardonnay wines spurred many new California plantings in the early 1970s. The most commonly planted clone was the “Wente” clone (UCD 2A) and, later, clone 108, isolated at UC Davis from vines grown in Carneros. Due to this grape’s blank canvas nature and the proliferation of new vineyard sources using essentially only two clones, regional variations in Chardonnay wines became more apparent than perhaps in any other varietal wine in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

In the 1990s, California vintners began paying much more attention to matching, not only varieties but also clones, to specific microclimates and vineyard sites. Many new vineyards and re-plantings since then, especially in cooler regions, have propogated the “Dijon” clones (particularly 75, 76, 78, 95 and 96), the “Espiguette” clone (352) or, in fewer locations, “Champagne” clones.

Two popular trends keep California Chardonnays from reaching the elevel of respect given to those from France: one is to satisfy consumer lust for any wine labeled “Chardonnay” with bland but inexpensive “cookie-cutter” wines; the other is to overwhelm any varietal personality or microclimatic subtlety with lavish amounts of oak barrel fermentation and aging.

Although California appellations have a shorter history than those of France, distinct regional characteristics emerge with the passage of each vintage. Eventually, proper site and clone matching and judicious production techniques may allow California AVAs to consistently show Chardonnay with distinct regional flavors.

The nominees for Best Supporting Appellation in a California Chardonnay are: Russian River Valley, shared by Sonoma and Mendocino Counties (apples, pears & peaches); Carneros, shared by Sonoma and Napa Counties (flinty); Monterey County (citric, lemony); Santa Maria Valley, Santa Barbara County (pineapple, tropical); Edna Valley, San Luis Obispo County (apricot, fleshy).

Challenges and difficulties in growing Chardonnay and higher production costs from barrel treatments, combined with increasing popular demand over the past decades, contribute to making chardonnay-based wines one of the most expensive on the shelf or winelist.

From: http://www.winepros.org/wine101/grape_profiles/chardonnay.htm

Cormac McCarthy’s The Road – A novel not for the squeamish or faint of heart.

This is not a happy book. It will not make you feel better or lift your spirits. In fact, you will come as close as you’ve ever been to tasting ashes in the back of your mouth without actually standing in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.
A bleak premise, an even bleaker outlook and no realistic hope for relief. Cormac McCarty’s newest novel plunges you headfirst into a tale so sordid it could push a sufficiently depressed person effortlessly over the edge (or off, in case you happen to be on a building at the time of reading).
A terse leading character on a foundation of McCarty’s hard-to-define, and seemingly sparse vocabulary makes this an ‘easy’ to read book but a very difficult cookie to digest.  No adjective, adverb or noun is wasted nor inappropriate in describing a post-some-apocalypse USA.
Following the 2 destitute main characters -a desperate, dying father (yet driven by a momentous will) and his innocent albeit unwilling son- we are introduced to a landscape that resembles everything which the word loss entails. With painfully scarce resources and no idea what, if anything, awaits them at what will probably be their final destination.
McCarty bestows so little prosperity on his characters that something as small as them finding a new pair of shoes makes you heave a sigh of relief with them. But this lasts as long as the sigh itself, because nothing can truly relieve you in a world torn asunder and continuously afflicted by the consequences of the disaster that has stricken the world where our characters seem to dwell only to find their final resting place.
This book, with its vivid yet soberly painted image, is an instant classic already transformed into a celluloid copy. In today’s plethora of hypocritically acclaimed non-sense and self-help books this book might actually help you much more with almost any kind of problem.

It’s sort of like the last coke on the world. Tastes special, sweet and in some inexplicable way it feeds your soul, but leaves an everlasting bitter flavor on your palates. Because it really was the last.

El pasado perfecto es lo que sucedió antes de otro evento pasado; 

 We had travelled to france when we arrived in Japan

(Nosotros habíamos viajado a Francia cuando llegamos a Japón)

En inglés se usa “had” para el pasado perfecto de todos los pronombres personales (lo que en español es: había, habías. habíamos, habían…!) , y al igual que en el presente perfecto, es seguido de un verbo en pasado participio. Otros ejemplos:

“We saw the movie again although we had seen it twice”

(Vimos la película otra vez aunque la habíamos visto dos veces”

“She had arrived when I called”

(Ella había llegado cuando llamé)

“They had always questioned and improved their own processes” 
(Ellos siempre habían cuestionado y mejorado sus propios procesos)

Los verbos en Pasado Participio usualmente terminan en “ed” (en español en “ado” e “ido”) como: lived (vivido) , worked (trabajado), studied (estudiado).

Tambien hay verbos irregulares en pasado participio, en vez de “decido” o “rompido”, decimos “dicho” o “roto”,  estos son verbos irregulares que igualmente hay en inglés, algunos ejemplos:

Presente perfecto es “haber hecho”;

“I have travelled to Japan” (he viajado a Japón) o,

“They have developed a new product” (ellos han desarrollado un nuevo producto)

Se construye igual que en español usando “have” (haber) seguido por un verbo en pasado participio(aquellos que terminan en “ed” en español en “ado” e “ido”)

Mientras que el “haber” se conjuga: he, has, ha, han, habéis, en inglés se conjuga sólo como “have” y “has”: