You are on page 1of 4

Log in | Sign up | Feedback | Blog

Search

MBA Quant DI English Vocabulary Archives ForumsNew! Events B-Schools

English Test 25

Directions for Questions from 1 to 3:


Any type of psychology that treats motives, thereby endeavoring to answer the question as to why men behave as they do, is called a dynamic
psychology. By its very nature it cannot be merely a descriptive psychology, content to depict the what and the how of human behavior. The
boldness of dynamic psychology in striking for causes stands in marked contrast to the timid, “more scientific,” view that seeks nothing else than
the establishment of a mathematical function for the relation between some artificially simple stimulus and some equally artificial and simple
response. If the psychology of personality is to be more than a matter of coefficients of correlation it too must be a dynamic psychology, and seek
first and foremost a sound and adequate theory of the nature of human dispositions.

The type of dynamic psychology almost universally held, though sufficient from the point of view of the
abstract motives of the generalized mind, fails to provide a foundation solid enough to bear the weight of any single full-bodied personality. The
reason is that prevailing dynamic doctrines refer every mature motive of personality to underlying original instincts, wishes, or needs, shared by all
men. Thus, the concert artist’s devotion to his music is sometimes ‘explained’ as an extension of his self-assertive instinct, of the need for
sentience, or as a symptom of some repressed striving of the libido. In McDougall’s hormic psychology, for example, it is explicitly stated that only
the instincts or propensities can be prime movers. Though capable of extension (on both the receptive and executive sides), they are always few in
number, common in all men, and established at birth. The enthusiastic collector of bric-a-brac derives his enthusiasm from the parental instinct; so
too does the kindly old philanthropist, as well as the mother of a brood. It does not matter how different these three interests may seem to be,
they derive their energy from the same source. The principle is that a very few basic motives suffice for explaining the endless varieties of human
interests. The psychoanalyst holds the same over-simplified theory. The number of human interests that he regards as so many canalizations of the
one basic sexual instinct is past computation

The authors of this type of dynamic psychology are concerning themselves only with mind-in-general. They seek a classification of the common and
basic motives by which to explain both normal or neurotic behavior of any individual case. (This is true even though they may regard their own list
as heuristic or even as fictional.) The plan really does not work. The very fact that the lists are so different in their composition suggests — what to
a naïve observer is plain enough — that motives are almost infinitely varied among men, not only in form but in substance. Not four wishes, nor
eighteen propensities, nor any and all combinations of these, even with their extensions and variations, seem adequate to account for the endless
variety of goals sought by an endless variety of mortals. Paradoxically enough, in many personalities the few simplified needs or instincts alleged to
be the common ground for all motivation, turn out to be completely lacking.

The second type of dynamic psychology, the one here defended, regards adult motives as infinitely varied, and as self-sustaining, contemporary
systems, growing out of antecedent systems, but functionally independent of them. Just as a child gradually repudiates his dependence on his
parents, develops a will of his own, becomes self-active and self-determining, and outlives his parents, so it is with motives. Each motive has a
definite point of origin which may possibly lie in instincts, or, more likely, in the organic tensions of infancy. Chronologically speaking, all adult
purposes can be traced back to these seed-forms in infancy, but as the individual matures the tie is broken. Whatever bond remains, is historical,
not functional.

Such a theory is obviously opposed to psychoanalysis and to all other genetic accounts that assume inflexibility in the root purposes and drives of
life. (Freud says that the structure of the Id never changes!) The theory declines to admit that the energies of adult personality are infantile or
archaic in nature. Motivation is always contemporary. The life of modern Athens is continuous with the life of the ancient city, but it in no sense
depends upon its present “go.” The life of a tree is continuous with that of its seed, but the seed no longer sustains and nourishes the full grown
tree. Earlier purposes lead into later purposes, and are abandoned in their favor. William James taught a curious doctrine that has been a matter
for incredulous amusement ever since, the doctrine of the transitoriness of instincts. According to this theory — not so quaint as sometimes thought
— an instinct appears but once in a lifetime, whereupon it promptly disappears through its transformation into habits. If there are instincts this is no
doubt of their fate, for no instinct can retain its motivational force unimpaired after it has been absorbed and recast under the transforming
influence of learning. Such is the reasoning of James, and such is the logic of functional autonomy. The psychology of personality must be a
psychology of post-instinctive behavior.

Woodworth has spoken of the transformation of “mechanisms” into “drives.” A mechanism Woodworth defines as any course of behavior that
brings about an adjustment. A drive is any neural process that releases mechanisms especially concerned with consummatory reactions. In the
course of learning, many preparatory mechanisms must be developed in order to lead to the consummation of an original purpose. These
mechanisms are the effective cause of activity in each succeeding mechanism, furnishing the drive for each stage following in the series. Originally
all these mechanisms were merely instrumental, only links in the long chain  of processes involved in  the achievement of an instinctive purpose; 
with time and development, with integration and elaboration, many of these mechanisms become activated directly, setting up a state of desire and
tension for activities and objects no longer connected with the original impulse. Activities and objects that earlier in the game were means to an
end, now become ends in themselves.

Although Woodworth’s choice of quasi-neurological terminology is not the best, his doctrine, or one like it is indispensable in accounting for the
infinite number of effective motives possible in human life, and for their severance from the rudimentary desires of infancy.
 

1. Which is the thematic highlight of this passage?

j The two kinds of dynamic psychology.


k
l
m
n
j The psychology of post- instinctive behaviour.
k
l
m
n
j The effective motives in human life.
k
l
m
n
j The transforming influence of learning.
k
l
m
n
j The logic of functional autonomy.
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

2. Dynamic psychology refers to

j The depiction of human behaviour.


k
l
m
n
j The accepting of why people behave in a certain manner.
k
l
m
n
j The understanding of human disposition vis-à-vis behaviour.
k
l
m
n
j The classification of human behaviour.
k
l
m
n
j The extension of the self.
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n
www.complore.com/test4PDF.php?id=75 Page 1 / 4
j The extension of the self.
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

3. According to the passage, the term “transitoriness of instincts” refers to

j The lingering nature of instincts.


k
l
m
n
j The lone appearance of instinct.
k
l
m
n
j The appearance and transformation of instinct.
k
l
m
n
j The transitory nature of habits.
k
l
m
n
j The transformational prowess of learning.
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

Directions for Questions from 4 to 6:


Given below is a passage, whose paragraphs have been jumbled up.
Read the paragraphs carefully and arrange them in a sequence to answer the questions given at the end of the passage.

1. September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in
the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That’s all to the good.
2. Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil to a
horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond what’s sometimes called the “retail
terror” of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.
3. Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies.
Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented sectors in the third-world.
4. In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: “While the US regularly denounces various countries
as ‘rogue states,’ in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external threat to their societies.”
5. For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about
the US “invasion” of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and
frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.
6. We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions
in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of “terrorism” - that is, when Americans apply
the term to enemies.
7. Today we do ourselves few favours by choosing to believe that “they hate us” and “hate our freedoms”. On the contrary, these are attitudes of
people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to
which they too aspire.
8. The president is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described “the campaign
of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”. His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the
US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” because of its interest in controlling the oil
resources of the region.
9. It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies “hate our
freedoms,” as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.
10. To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, the internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed
Rashid writes that in Pakistan “there is growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf’s] military regime to delay the promise of democracy”.
 

4. Which of the following would be the third paragraph of the sequentially arranged passage?
 

j Paragraph 6
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 1
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 8
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 10
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 5
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

  5. Which of the following would be the opening paragraph?  


 

j Paragraph 7
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 1
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 3
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 9
k
l
m
n
j Paragraph 2
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

6. Which of the following is likely to continue the passage further?


 

j An international Gallup poll in late September found little support for “a military attack” by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region
k
l
m
n
with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
j The current “campaign of hatred” in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by US policies toward Israel, Palestine and Iraq. The US has
k
l
m
n
provided the crucial support for Israel’s harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.
j The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But
k
l
m
n
with qualifications.
j They presumably also welcome the “Bush doctrine” that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The
k
l
m
n
president has announced: “There’s no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland.” T
j Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemiesPage
k
l
m
n
www.complore.com/test4PDF.php?id=75 do,2 / 4
for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n
j They presumably also welcome the “Bush doctrine” that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The
k
l
m
n
president has announced: “There’s no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland.” T
j Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do,
k
l
m
n
for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

Directions for Questions from 7 to 10:


Leslie A. Adelson, whom Andreas Huyssen has accurately called “the leading scholar in the field of ‘Turkish- German literature,’” seeks in her latest
book to redefine those often arbitrarily applied terms “Turkish” and “German.” Adelson adamantly advocates for understanding “Turkish” and
“German” less as historically loaded labels and more as the names of two living cultures that exist essentially inside one another. Although her title
includes the phrase “A New Critical Grammar of Migration,” much of the secondary material, analysis, and primary texts are not so new at all.
Instead, Adelson has based this book on at least three previous journal articles and one conference paper.Readers familiar with Adelson’s previous
articles will find themselves rereading key passages from tho se publications transplanted verbatim into the book manuscript. In addition, they will
find that the chief aims of the articles have much in common with the book’s goals as well. Knowing this research history, one central question
emerged for me as a reviewer: what would motivate readers to devote time to a book that at first glance simply seems to repeat previously-
published material? As I read further, however, more and more valid reasons became clear.

One general answer might be that, although Adelson obviously incorporates previous research, The Turkish Turn just as clearly indicates steady
development and productive expansion of theoretical ideas that address viewing Turkish literature as an inextricable part of German culture. One
more specific answer is that Adelson’s new twist more intently considers “the literature of Turkish migration as part of an evolving national tradition
of Holocaust memory in Germany” . By reorganizing and supplementing old material, the author, in her own words, attempts to broach the “relative
novum in German literature” of the “sustained combination of story lines about Turkish migration and twentieth-century German history” .

In most of her works on Turkish-German literature, Adelson contends in one formulation or another that German and Turkish experiences since
World War II and again since reunification share more similarities than differences . In her 2000 article as well as the present book, she identifies
her central frustration with current German Studies: “Despite the fact that ensuing migrations and births have made Turks the largest minority in
unified Germany, they are rarely seen as intervening meaningfully in the narrative of postwar German history” . As far back as her 1994 publication
“Opposing Oppositions: Turkish-German Questions in Contemporary German Studies,” and as recently as a paper presented in 2004, “Hello
Germany! Toward a New Critical Grammar of Migration,” Adelson has been proposing innovative methods for confronting nonconstructive labels that
have encased Turks and Germans in the language of stereotype.

In her latest study, she reiterates her scholarly interest in overturning ways that other scholars have defined the relationship between Turkish-
German citizens and German society as the dominant culture. To name one example, Adelson demands her readers to reject boldly the prevalent
idea that Turkish literature is “situated in a predictable sense ‘between two worlds’” . According to the author, taking this first step and
subsequently performing the suggested style of reading would allow scholars to produce a more complete picture of the Turkish experience as a
fundamental part of German history. In addition, this enlightened reading highlights ways that Turkish literature “touches” German history as
incontestably as German literature meets German history. As in previous texts, the author again aims to expand the analytical paradigms scholars
have used to study German-Turkish relationships in this century. Expanding current methods of analysis involves, for Adelson, devising
methodological alternatives in order to produce new readings of narratives from authentic Turkish voices, including Aras Ören, Emine Sevgi 
Özdamar, Zafir Senoçak, and Feridun Zaimoglu.

In order to study anew previously analyzed works such as Der Hof im Spiegel (2001), Gefährliche
Verwandtschaft (1998), and Kanak Sprak (1995), Adelson broadly splits the study into three thematicallydivided chapters with subdivisions
featuring theoretical and literary analysis. In its own way, each of the divisions skillfully encourages and sustains her far-reaching intention of
“undoing accepted ideas and methods of analysis and dichotomies after the Third Reich” , as well as imparting an undeniable “Turkish inflection of
German memory” . In the first chapter, “Dialogue and Storytelling,” she focuses on the medium of dialog and its corresponding opposite, silence, in
various texts to intimate specific ways that Turks have begun to join the conversation about the German past. By embracing or remaining just
outside dialogs with Germans, Turkish characters in the texts leave ambiguous impressions. On one hand, they have begun finding their own words
for the Nazi past, while on the other, they simultaneously desire and yet do not desire to join these conversations. Focusing on this key issue,
Adelson emphasizes the common ground that Germans and Turks share. In contexts like these, according to Adelson, Germans and Turks produce
“touching tales,” and thereby reveal their overwhelming similarities.

Chapter 2 carries the ambiguous title “Genocide and Taboo,” which once again causes Turkish history and German history to touch. In this chapter,
Adelson contemplates the “crisis of historical consciousness” in the twentieth century, but especially since the 1990s, when the “culture of memory
[underwent] a radical shift” .

Focusing on the novel, Perilous Kinship (2001), Adelson describes how the intertwined worlds at work in the story represent the “entangled tale of
German taboos” . In the spirit of shattering old stereotypes, the second part of the chapter elucidates how, for example, mention of the Holocaust
in Kanak Sprak essentially “defies myths of the lovable oppressed Turk” and rejects images of the silenced, victimized “defiant young Turks”.
Adelson deftly uses these examples to support her claims that the new triangulated formation between Germans, Jews, and Turks “releases
conventional victim/perpetrator labels” . Not limiting the discussion of genocide  to the Holocaust, Adelson also presents and analyzes texts that 
consider the Turks’ double memory work of dealing with the Armenian genocide as well as the Holocaust in Germany.

Chapter 3, “Capital and Labor,” illuminates the role that economics and labor have played in forming the conventional picture of the Turk in
Germany. Adelson cites theories that make migrant laborers into emblematic subjects of a global economy only to ask readers to challenge such
outdated tropes . In a discussion that spans popular perception of the Turkish Gastarbeiter to popular perception of headscarves as “related to a
gendered critique of violence” , Adelson leaves no stone unturned in her profound consideration of the formation and sustainability of Turkish
stereotypes in Germany in this century. The chapter’s combination of extensive theory and close readings encourages viewing literature and literary
theory at the “crossroads of German national history and Turkish migration” . Adelson’s three all-embracing chapters strongly imply that this
intersection marks the point of a major, yet ignored or underestimated, national German transformation.

7. Adelson does not


 

j Advocate understanding “Turkish” and “German” as historically loaded labels.


k
l
m
n
j Propose innovative methods for confronting non-constructive stereotypical labels.
k
l
m
n
j Incorporate previous research in the Turkish Turn.
k
l
m
n
j Reorganize and supplement old material in the Turkish Turn.
k
l
m
n
j View turks as intervening meaningfully in post war German History.
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

8. The primary purpose of Adelson is to

j Refute the domination of German culture.


k
l
m
n
j To refute the idea that Turkish literature and German literature are disjoint.
k
l
m
n
j To prove that significant overlaps exist between Turkish and German culture.
k
l
m
n
j To prove that Turks have played a significant role in German history.
k
l
m
n
j To prove that the use of stereotypes-Turkish and German- should be examined.
k
l
m
n
www.complore.com/test4PDF.php?id=75 Page 3 / 4
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n
j To prove that Turks have played a significant role in German history.
k
l
m
n
j To prove that the use of stereotypes-Turkish and German- should be examined.
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

9. The closest meanings of the words-novum and trope-as used in the passage are
 

j New and outdated


k
l
m
n
j New and metaphor
k
l
m
n
j Game and Figure of speech
k
l
m
n
j Cult and metaphor
k
l
m
n
j Trend and Figure of speech
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

10. According to Adelson, Germans and Turks are similar because


 

j Both leave ambiguous impressions while talking about the past.


k
l
m
n
j Turks have begun to join German conversations.
k
l
m
n
j Germans have started accommodating Turks in their dialogues.
k
l
m
n
j Both carry similar poignant impressions about the past.
k
l
m
n
j The words used by both are similar in various contexts
k
l
m
n
i Skip this question
j
k
l
m
n

Take this test online

© Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved.

www.complore.com/test4PDF.php?id=75 Page 4 / 4