Multiple source paper

Posted on by
Reply

Thesis: There is a conflict between psychological sciences and religion in that psychology is based on empirical evidence and religion is based in faith. Religion is pathologized among psychologists and it shows implicitly within the clinical setting. The client takes offense to the insult, whether he/she shows it or not, and often can leave the clinical setting worse off than he/she entered.

How many sides to an argument is too many? Can an argument get cluttered with too many counter-arguments?

Can my thesis be at the end of my paper rather than in the introductory paragraph?

If I only have content analysis as evidence in my argument, is that enough?

What are some formats for a good multiple source paper?

Is it possible to not have a definitive conclusion until all my evidence and reasons are on paper first?

Reading Reflection #10: Statistics and Draft Annotation

Posted on by
Reply

 

    • Unknowable and biased statistics: Browne and Keeley write “Any statistic requires that some events somewhere have been defined and accurately identified, but these conditions are often not met” First strategy you can use is finding out how the statistics were acquired. Always ask, “how did the author arrive at the estimate?” (135)
    • Confusing averages: There are different ways to arrive at an average and the use of one may not be conducive to what we are trying to average. When faced with an average ask if it matters whether is is the mean, median, or mode. Keep range and distribution in mind. (ARQ 136)
    • Measurement errors: Ways in which things are measured may be wrong, I would ask in which way was this statistic measured, under what conditions and what was used to determine the measurement. (ARQ 136)
    • Concluding one thing, proving another: Some statistics means to determine one thing but the author uses it to determine another. What stats are needed to prove this conclusion or what can I conclude from these stats, if the author says something different then he/she might be trying to deceive us. (ARQ 138)
    • Deceiving by omitting information: Incomplete statistics. What further info do I need so I can judge the impact of these stats. If the author tries to wow us with big number beware. Keep in mind absolute numbers and percentages, if one or the other is missing, ask of its importance. (ARQ 139)

2. In the following paragraph, identify the inadequacies in the evidence:

Campaigns for national office are getting out of hand. Money is playing a central role in more and more elections. The average winner in a senate race now spends over $8 million on their campaign, while typical presidential candidates spend more than $300 million. It is time for some serious changes, because we cannot simply allow politicians to buy their seats through large expenditures on advertisements. 

I’m thinking that 300 million might be a little high, they used the mean instead of the median of mode.

3. In the following paragraph, identify the inadequacies in the evidence:

The home is becoming a more dangerous place to spend time. The number of home-related injuries is on the rise. In 2010, approximately 2300 children aged 14 and under died from accidents in the home. Also, 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. To make matters worse, even television, a relatively safe household appliance, is becoming dangerous. In fact, 42,000 people are injured by televisions and television stands each year. With so many accidents in the home, perhaps people need to start spending more time outdoors.

What kind of accidents took place in the home? Also if that 2300 children was taken from a national stand point then that is a small number compared to the millions of Americans and does not conclude that spending time at home is dangerous. And I would bargain that the people being bitten by dogs each year are outside of the home and aren’t the owners of the dogs themselves. Dogs tend to guard the home. 42,000 is also a small number compared to the millions in America. I see deception by omitting information. Concluding one thing, proving another. Unknowable, biased statistics.

Khadija Ali and Hanna Belay

Posted on by
Reply

I liked how Professor Belay incorporated covid into the presentation and lead it into health disparities. I thought it was interesting how she mentioned that there were health disparities existing in the black community before covid and how that pre-existing condition is what contributed to the heightened risk of covid among Black Americans. Also, when she was talking about the ICU she said “nurses who work in the cancer, in the oncology unit or manage patients with cancers, they do have a lot of responsibilities treating not only the disease, the cancer, or the treatment but also the emotional health of the patients.” This may not be about my topic but it inspired me because I will be a nursing student soon.

I like how Khadija said that when she does her treatment of an individual, she keeps in mind whether the client has religious preferences or not and, whatever the answer, she respects it and uses there preference in their treatment plan. I kind of knew she would go in that direction because she is religious herself. To have that perspective is helpful to my topic because I can get to know what works in incorporating spirituality into a treatment plan. I will be interviewing her in the next week or so and I want to get her opinion if educating non-religious mental health professionals in religion is a good idea or if it should be an area of study for all who are on the mental health tract in college no matter what their religious preference is. I would also like to know if she has ever experienced religious bias within the mental health field and what she thinks about it happening to clients. Also if she has any alternative methods of dealing with religious bias withing the clinical setting. I like how she said she wants to make sure she knows where the client is coming from before she administers any treatment and makes herself aware of any bias she might harbor against, for instance, a Christian, because she Muslim. This tells me that she understands religious bias more so than some of her secular counterparts in the mental health field. I love the fact that she believes religion and hope and therapy work hand in hand.

 

Presentation 11/10/20

Posted on by
Reply

Theresa Heck, Professor of Kinesiology, School of Education, at St. Cloud State Universty stated, “change is glacial, its an ongoing process.” What she was referring to is the ever changing diversity in schools and how schools and their teachers are implementing change in terms of welcoming minorities into the fold. A government claims that we are all equal but Heck refers to equality as “unfair,” “Equal is like a race in that we all start in the same place but,” its not fair in terms of black and white, or disability and non-disability. Or in the example Heck demonstrates for us, a monkey and a fish trying to climb a tree, the monkey would obviously get the banana before the fish would.

Theresa Heck had a lot of knowledge on the climate of schools and how to teach in them. I suppose she has to because she teaches teachers. I don’t know how I would implement her presentation into my topic, they are seemingly unrelated but if I was writing about diverse climates in the classroom and the social injustices that go with them I would have many things to implement. She had a lot of information and she moved quite quickly through it all. I wanted to watch part of it again but I didn’t see a link for the recording. Anyways, thank you for having Prof. Heck present for us and I look forward to hearing the other presenters.

Reading Reflection #9: Evidence Part 2

Posted on by
Reply
  1. The scientific method is a method of doing research that requires you to take certain steps in formulating a theory. The steps include making an observation or asking a question, coming up with a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis with an experiment, and if the hypothesis holds up, you analyze the data and draw a conclusion, then voice your results. If the hypothesis does not hold up you should go back to step one, ask another question. Replication is a key characteristic of the scientific method, the fact that the experiment can be done again with the same results makes this evidence valuable. Whats more is, in conducting the experiments, researchers often use different variables to control the experiments in a way that makes the findings more verifiable and precise. Which brings me to the third characteristic, precision; researchers use more precise language rather than ambiguous language in making their claim, unlike the former evidence we read about.
  1. Surveys can be unreliable for a number of reasons, dishonesty in answering the questions, ambiguous wordings of questions, people not taking there time in the survey and just answering randomly, and many surveys are biased in their questioning. Some things you can look for in finding if a survey is reliable is the length of the survey, how the survey is conducted/the procedures behind it, the context, and how the questions are worded.
  2. The pros of research studies are in my answer to number one about scientific method. But some cons of research study are that results are not proof of a conclusion, they are only support for conclusions, (ARQ p.104). Another con is that some research studies have not been replicated yet and so are of less quality than ones that have been replicated again and again. Some studies can not be replicated and were false in their findings or their findings were, as Browne and Keeley put it; “greatly exaggerated.” (ARQ p.104)
  1. What is the quality of the source of the report? Is the article that contains the study peer reviewed? Another question to ask is how recently was the research conducted and could the findings have changed over time? Look for when the study was published whether at the same time your source was published or before, (you can find the year of a study either in the in-text citation within your souces article or in their work cited page). And one more, Is there any evidence of strong-sense critical thinking? In the sources reasonings, you can find if he/she is using evidence that is bound to his/her beliefs or if the reasonings are more open to all sides of an issue.
  2. A rival cause is an alternative causation to an event. You should start looking for one when the communicator is attempting to assert the cause of something. There are key phrases that should alert you to the possibility of a rival cause; including but not limited to: Leads to, influences, is linked to, and increases the likelihood. Some questions to ask yourself when faced with “causal thinking” (ARQ p.121) are: Can I think of any other way to interpret the evidence? What else might have caused this act or these findings? If I looked at the event from another point of view, what might I see as important causes? If this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretation might make sense? (ARQ p.122)
  3. correlations are 2 or more events that seem to be connected in some way and can look like a cause to eachother. According to google, (because I couldn’t put into words what a cause is), a cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. The cause is more difficult to demonstrate then the correlation because there are so many combinations of events that can influences another event that the string of events that happen in order for another event to happen is often overlooked in favor of a general cause.
  4. Conclusion: Increased amounts of germs and bacteria on college campuses cause higher rates of illness in college students.
    Reason/cause: College students are less likely to sanitize living areas and common areas on campus, which in turn creates excessive germs on surfaces and in the air leading to more sickness in students
    Rival (other possible) causes: College students could contract the illness elsewhere and spread it even while cleaning living areas on campus. Or, there could be a pandemic and the school hasn’t closed down events in light of it and the rate of students being ill increases.
    Evaluation (How strong is the original argument? What’s missing?): Not very strong. Where does the communicator get this information? How does he/she know that students aren’t cleaning their living areas? How does she know there is an excess of germs on surfaces and in the air? The communicator seems to be pulling causes out of the air when there are many other possibilities of why students are getting sick. His/her evaluation of what is making the students sick is “a cause, not the cause.” (ARQ p.123)

Presentations

Posted on by
Reply

In response to Shawn Williams, I observed that there is much being done in the teaching of new peace officers about bias in the field and in the workplace. I like the fact that it is not tolerated at any rate. In response to Smith’s question, “what makes a community safe?” I would like to answer that justice creates a safe community. Actions have consequences whether its a law broken or a name called, the policing and teaching of such events helps a community to be in harmony, and if someone interrupts that harmony, the police along with other members of the society quiets the belligerent so that the community can go on in the rhythm and rhyme that was before the interruption. Another thing that helps a community be safe is the community itself doing there part in creating a safe space for everyone. In this pandemic, I have observed the goodness of people, and the willingness of people to do what it takes not only to keep others safe but also in created ways of getting people involved. In the midst of social distancing we have found ways to socialize safely. Other things that keep a community safe is showing love and compassion everywhere you go. You have no idea the horrible day someone could be having and how just saying hello could brighten their day. Which brings me to Dr. Moriaty, I love how at the beginning she spoke of the politically correct way to refer to persons’ who struggle with homelessness and not only homelessness but also mental illness and other unfortunate events/crisis that people face. You never know how or why a person is in the position they are in or why they are the way they are. I know that the ways in which I was homeless and the reasons why are bigger than me just being a failure at life. It had to do with the support I had, my mental health at the time, my addiction, my religion, my perceptions, and the world around me with all its influences that I somehow couldn’t fight at the time, housing situations. It was much more than ‘go get a job.’ Same with my mental health problem, I didn’t choose this for myself and the same is true for many others, if not all others. I can connect a lot of the social workers’ perspective to my topic more so than with the criminal justice aspect. The fact that social work works so closely with mental health could provide me with some of the knowledge I need to back some of my reasons.

Work Cited: Williams, Shawn and Sheila Moriarty. “In Class Presentations.” Examining Today’s Social Issues, English 191, 5 nov. 2020, Zoom Conference

Reading Reflection #8: Evidence Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

According to Keeley, Stuart M. and Neil M. Brown, Asking the Right Questions, evidence is information used by the writer or speaker that helps to validate certain claims, or reasons, he/she has made in an argument. (p. 91)

Personal Experience: Using things from your past experiences as evidence to back an argument. A possible problem with this one is what Keeley and Brown call “hasty generalization,” for example, if this is the case with my experience, then this must be the case for every experience that has these parameters

Case Examples: Vivid stories of events to help support a claim and to get the audience interested in whatever is being argued. While this can be good to use in helping an audience to understand the issue, this isn’t hard evidence.

Testimonials: These are reviews of events. Some can be false, especially if seeing them on the internet.

Appeals to Authority: This kind of evidence is better then the types that precede this type of evidence. You are invoking the words or works of an expert in a certain field. Trouble is the expert might be wrong, or experts contradict themselves withing the same field of expertise.

The article I read, Why Questions (Good or Bad) Matter, by Marcello Fiocco, is an article of how important it is to ask questions. He used three types of evidence in his article. Spoke from experience, “whose job it is to ask questions” (Fiocco), as a professor of philosophy and he spoke of his children saying, “I say this as a father of two small children with a tendency to ask questions for which the answers are clearly not the goal.” Case example, where he spoke of a girl who asked seemingly stupid questions about the origins of math on her tiktok page where everybody made fun of her for doing so. Except when (appealing to authority) the experts came and said that she wasn’t stupid and couldn’t really give her a straight answer to her philosophical questions because they, the experts, didn’t know. I thought that the case evidence was relevant and interesting, made me that much more engaged in the topic and got me thinking of “is there stupid questions? Or should I have more tolerance for people and their questions?” The evidence fit the argument well. Now for the personal experience evidence; I thought this could have been left out and it would have been a better argument for it. His assumption that I care for his experience/opinion or think him an expert on the issue because of it was wrong. Fiocco’s appeal to my emotions with his opinion, “I believe that asking questions should be of the utmost importance to anyone who cares about themselves or others,” was actually kind of insulting and made me angry. If he would have just stuck with the case evidence and the experts, other than himself, the article would have been awesome.

Fiocco, Marcello, Why Questions (Good and Bad) Matter, The conversation, 2 November 2020, https://theconversation.com/why-questions-good-and-bad-matter-147412

Reading Reflection #6: Logical Fallacies

Posted on by
Reply
  1. The fallacy that comes to mind is the fallacy of explaining by naming. It mainly comes up in conversations with friends and family in trying to understand a certain problem, is we state what the problem or person is doing or what they are then we feel we understand the problem when really we don’t. I’ve heard it in political commercials as well.
  2. Back in 2012 I was trying to explain to my mom why I do some of the things I do and blamed her and my dad for things they did in my past, diverting there attention from the issue and onto them using the red herring fallacy.
  3. ad-hominem, explaining by naming, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, either-or
  4. ad-hominem, explaining by naming, red herring, slippery slope
  5. For number four, instead of attacking the people complaining, it could be explained why these parties are good for the campus community. Also, instead of insulting them, state reasons why such complaints are unjustified. Something else that could be changed to make this argument better is the minimizing at the beginning of the paragraph, those actions of fights and rapes are pretty messed up and to recognize that and acknowledge it would be better. Also explain why these types of things won’t happen again, what precautions are being made to stop these sorts of actions at a party.

Multiple Source Essay

Posted on by
Reply

The topic I will be covering is, ‘should health professionals be allowed to discredit a persons religious beliefs when dealing with mental health.’ The reason I am interested in this topic is because I have faced mental health issues for a long time and in my belief the issues come from a spiritual basis rather than a mental one. The things I deal with on a daily basis are voices condemning me and my past actions/sins. Voices that continually are against God even though I am for him. Voices that want me to sin against God and that become worse when I go to church or kneel to pray. I can hear these voices as clear as someone physically talking to me. These voices have lead me to hate God for not taking them away and with no hope I have wanted to die and never wake up. As such, I have sought the help of mental health professionals who reject such ideas as to a God and demons and Satan. Because of this when I talk to these therapists and psychologists they tell me these voices stem from my own thoughts. They stem from my past experiences and they are not real. When they say these things I feel they are insulting me. I feel they are telling me to reject my faith in the bible and what it says. Jesus talks of demon possession, that evil spirits can get into a human being and make them think, feel, and act in ways otherwise they wouldn’t. He says that satan tempts people to worry, and blame God, and to doubt God, how would he do this unless he were in you tempting you, thinking inside of you to do against God exactly like these voices I hear do? How can a therapist tell me that these things are not real when none of there treatments work in pacifying the “spirits” I hear. How can these mental health professionals tell me that what the bible says is wrong? How can they tell me that God isn’t real along with the other spirits that come with believing in him? I have rejected God to trust in medication that don’t work. I have tried to open my mind to maybe these things are just in my head and are a product of my past and my imagination run amuk. Also, an example of something these therapists say to me is that because I am so ashamed of my past sins, that is the reason these voices tell me that I’m condemned. This is when I believe within myself that I am not condemned, I believe that Jesus died for me and saved me from condemnation so how at the same time could I be telling myself that I am condemned, like these voices are my own voice?

What I would like to do is get the viewpoint of religion from various healthcare professionals. Learn why they prefer alternative treatments to spirituality. Learn why they tell me my belief in the bible is wrong. I also want to get the perspective of others that believe in religion rather than mental health practices. I would like to come at this article I am going to write from an outside view and leave much of my experience out of the picture. My argument is against the implicit bias of health professionals toward Christians and their beliefs.

 

Reading Reflection #7: Free Write on Individual Topic

Posted on by
Reply

The topic in which I am interested is psychology and how the field treats people who are more ‘in tune’ to spirituality than they are. An example of my topic is some people deal with voices that are condescending and always reminding you of your sins. Some would call the voice Satan, and some would call it paranoid schizophrenia. The bible teaches that the enemy will tempt you to worry, tempt you to doubt God, tempt you to even curse God. So in my mind, It goes to say that the devil can put thoughts in your head, make you feel certain ways, and talk to you in your mind. The secular world of psychology teaches that we are alone in the physical world. There are no demons to sway your mind so everything in your mind must be a product of your own thoughts, for example, your past, people have told you you’re worthless and so you go over it and over it in your mind and it develops a voice, or you have done some bad things in your life and because you know these things to be bad then your shame has manifested within your brain as a person. Two very different doctrines that contradict one another and can be more damaging then if you wouldn’t have stepped within a hospital to begin with.

There is scripture that talks of demons possessing you. So are demons possessing you or do you have a mental illness needing medication and therapy. There is an obvious dilemma here, if what the bible says is real than no amount of medication or therapy is going to stop you from being possessed and hearing voices because the doctor doesn’t even believe in this stuff, so talking to one puts you in a weird position. You tell the doctor your beliefs and he tells you that all your beliefs are wrong, pretty much insulting your faith. But you just tried to kill yourself so you have to talk to a doctor as a safety precaution and the law makes it happen.

I want to research biblical articles on the subject and research into why doctors actively speak against some of the religious beliefs that people have even though the symptoms remain after psychological treatment of the “diagnosis”

In a book of the Bible called Job, the devil goes up to heaven and asks God to test one of Gods faithful servants, saying to God, of course Job won’t sin against you, you have a hedge of protection on him and he has pretty much anything a man could want, take the hedge down and let me tempt him and surely he will curse you. So God gives the devil permission to hurt Job saying, Job loves me, even if you take everything he has, he will not curse me, so the devil kills Jobs family, takes his health, and gets in the minds of his friends to tell Job, “God has abandoned you.” Job does not curse God. But me, I have cursed God, I have seen enough of Satan to wish I was dead (I don’t want this now but I say this to bring in the psychology aspect). That being said I went to the hospital where psychologists tell me I’m delusional and that the voices aren’t real. The voices are a figment of my imagination run wild. I believe this a social injustice.

Some biases I have are against psychologists and how they handle these situations which in my mind are a waste of time. My anger that they’re treatments have not worked might affect my language toward them.