I honestly agree with the writer to a certain extent. I’m currently taking a criminology class on wrongful convictions and what happens in a lot of cases is experts are called to the stand as witnesses and basically will present what’s called “junk science” that looks and sounds scientific but is not actually rooted in real science methodology. Now, often times this junk science is not referring to behavioral science, but in some cases, it is, and that’s where a lot of wrongful convictions will really be solidified because the jury is prone to believe what an “expert” is telling them. I think that the statement that the majority of behavioral science is just “the study of college kids in psych labs” is going a bit too far because there are scientists where this is their life’s work (Philip Zimbardo for example), and they do make serious contributions to the behavioral science field. I could definitely see where the writer is coming from though, because when I read the statement “college kids in psych labs” it reminded me of the Stanford Prison Experiment which was exactly that, college kids in the (basement of) a psych lab and their behavior was observed and then conclusions drawn. And the reason I bring this specific experiment up is because although the study’s basis had a good scientific foundation, I think the conclusion that the majority of people, if put in a position of power over prisoners, would mercilessly beat them and do all of the other awful things some of those college kids in the study did is simply not backed by enough evidence. This is my reasoning simply because there are prison guards who have that much power who chose, everyday, to treat inmates as people.

Overall, the writer does bring up a good point that you should always stay skeptical and I think that this does relate to my topic because the studies done on mental illness are very much behaviorally based. While I do love to cite scientific research when arguing a point, I definitely think this article will be in the back of my head from now on and hopefully stop me from putting any “junk science” in my writing.

For my paradigm shift topic, I will be focusing on the shift in the prevalence of mental health issues, while also focusing on how the increased terror attacks within the US have contributed to this. My timeline starts in the 1920s with a TNT bombing and then follows an 20 year increment structure throughout the essay, up until present day. The main idea of my topic is that the terror attacks didn’t increase per say, but they became less and less personally driven which directly causes anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues to exponentially increase throughout the years. In the early 1900s, most of the terror attacks in the US were carried out via personal vendettas. Something made someone mad, they took it personally, and then caused whoever made them mad direct harm. But, as we move through the years, the terror attacks become less personal and this gradual shift is seen with the bombing of the Statue of Liberty by Croatian separatists. The shift does a complete 180 when we get to the attacks of 9/11, and then continuously grows into more and more acts of mindless killings with school shooters.

I chose to explore this specific shift because I think this is a good start for me to become involved with the March For Our Lives movement. I did choose to participate in the silent walkout last year in high school, but I think that one of the best things that can be done in a situation like this where legislation is really not budging, is in the mean time, look at all of the factors contributing to the issue (mass school shootings) and find out how to intervene. My timeline ultimately ends at present day where we are in the age of school shootings and have the highest (recorded) amounts of people being diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and I think these issues affect everyone on a day-to-day basis whether they’re seeing terrorism on the news or actually struggling with mental health issues which is why their attention would absolutely be warranted. Lastly, the 3 sub-categories as an added 3rd layer will focus on technology, cultural movements, and laws (airport security) and how these categories have contributed to the rise in reported mental health issues and how they actually change our perception of terrorism to increase the mental illness percentages.

Although correlation is not causation, I sincerely believe that smartphones and technology in general has affected my generation. The way I see technology and the changes it has caused from GenerationX to my “iGeneration” is a smooth curve from a generation that has kids more engaged with their surroundings to a generation that’s obsessed with themselves. Because of this “smooth curve” I can see connecting GenerationX to my generation I would certainly consider this a paradigm shift. GenerationX did obviously have technology available to them. But over the years, the use of technology has skyrocketed which has lead to detrimental issues for the “iGeneration“. With less technology usage, kids were engaged with their peers, they were happier, and they were physically and mentally healthier. The rates for female suicide have skyrocketed between GenerationX and the iGeneration due to mental health deteriorating in teens. As much as I’d like to vouch for the side that says the benefits of technology outweigh the setbacks, I simply cannot do this because everything talked about in this article, I’ve seen and experienced firsthand. I’ve seen that Snapchat story and asked myself why I wasn’t invited. I’ve posted that picture on Instagram and wondered why I wasn’t getting as many likes as my friends. I’ve found myself sitting at dinner with my boyfriend, looking up from my phone, wondering why this had become a norm for us to spend time together but on our phones. It’s come to the point where I notice the detrimental effects technology, specifically smartphones, has on a daily basis. Just today I was sitting on the bus back to my dorm and I got a weird feeling in my stomach. I actually thought that I was going to be judged because the bus was packed and I was the only one sitting there, not looking at my phone. I thought that someone might think I was looking at them, that someone might see my presence as awkward because I wasn’t staring at my phone. That feeling of judgment and insecurity because I wasn’t looking at my phone is a monumental issue and was hard for me to actually realize what it was stemming from.

A couple years ago my family and I started watching a new (hilarious) show called The Goldbergs. It’s about a family living in suburbia during the 80s. The description of the show literally uses the words, “a simpler time” to describe this family’s life. And why is that, you ask? Because yes, the family had technology and absolutely used it, but it didn’t take away from their real-life social interactions. And you can see in the show how each of the family member’s validation comes from the other family members, not from likes and number of friends on social media. We’re at a place in history right now where validation stems from these things What we actually need right now is to all “throw our phones at the wall” for at least a few hours everyday so that we can get back to a place where validation comes from within ourselves.

For my rhetorical analysis essay, I will be comparing the movie Life is Beautiful to the movie from which my civic artifact was picked, Schindler’s List. Life is Beautiful is an Italian film created by Roberto Benigni who also stars as the main character, Guido. The movie is essentially a humorous take on a very serious subject, the Holocaust. Although the movie ends in tragedy with Guido being shot while he is in a concentration camp, one of the main message of the movie is finding the positive, more humorous side of things. Humor can be a huge coping method for people and as shown in the movie, humor and positivity was what got Guido’s son through the Holocaust. Before the Holocaust, Guido did not take life very seriously which sometimes got him into trouble, but other times, was a huge blessing especially when it came to meeting his wife. When him and his son are put together in a concentration camp, he again, takes the situation nonchalantly and pretends for the sake of his son that they’re living in the concentration camp because they’re part of a fun game.

I was particularly drawn to this artifact mainly because I had seen the movie so many times that when I needed to compare Oskar Schindler to someone, Begnini’s character popped right into my head. Because the movie has such a great theme of resilience despite tragedy, and it’s completely in Italian, I watched the movie in my Italian class twice a year for four years in high school, so I know the movie fairly well. I definitely think that an in-depth analysis of this film is possible because the movie has an extremely unique take on the Holocaust. Some of the things that I’ve gone in-depth about in my rough drafts is the pathos employed in Life is Beautiful and the similar ways in which the two films show the extent to which daily life was affected. Another thing that I found really interesting as I went deeper into both movies was the fact that kairotic appeals were definitely present in Schindler’s List, but when Life is Beautiful is looked at closely, there really is no kairos. This is definitely something I hope to develop more in my essay.